Free Republic

No relationship, even the strongest ones, exists without at least an occasional argument. What separates resilient couples from others is the way they're able to handle conflict. The way partners communicate is the most important, especially when feelings run high and tempers are heated. "Before you speak, take a beat to consider the impact of what you want to say," says Shari Foos, M.A., M.F.T., M.S., founder nonprofit group program The Narrative Method. "Try to anticipate how the information might make your partner feel, so you can show empathy to them while expressing what you want to say. Try writing...

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' case against former President Donald Trump in Georgia may have been dealt a blow after the judge presiding over the matter agreed to hear pretrial motions and an appeal against Willis' ability to bring charges against one of the defendants. In August, Trump and 18 other defendants were indicted as part of Willis' probe into alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. On March 28, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee is expected to hear arguments from Trump's lawyers that the Georgia election interference case is intended to criminalize political speech....

2,100,446 views Dec 24, 2023 Every Famous Logical Fallacy gets explained in 11 minutes.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday over a blocked Biden administration policy that would prioritize deportation of people in the country illegally who pose the greatest public safety risk. The arguments are scheduled to start at 10 a.m. ET. Listen in the player above. Republican-led states sued and won a nationwide court order that is meant to limit immigration officers’ discretion in deciding whom to deport. The justices are hearing arguments in the case Tuesday.

In this episode Trent talks about five pro-life arguments you should avoid when trying to make the strongest defense of unborn children.

Wildly inaccurate facts and spurious arguments are unavoidable features of social media. Yet no matter how infuriatingly wrong someone is, or just how much counter-evidence you have at your disposal, starting arguments on the internet rarely gets anyone to change their mind. Nearly a century-and-a-half ago, British philosopher John Stuart Mill explained, in a few clear sentences, why certain arguments simply won’t go anywhere. As historian Robert Saunders notes, Mill’s analysis neatly applies to heated and futile internet debates.

The culture of America is changed in part by the conversations passed from citizen to citizen. For conservatives, it not a lack of values that hurt them in debates with liberals. It is a lack of skill of knowing how to word their thoughts and understand the different debate tactics that liberals approach them with. This audiobook debate guide is for conservatives and will arm you with debate skills you can use anywhere. It's FREE, no strings attached. Just email ibbetson91.9@gmail.com and write "debate guide" in the subject line and we will send you a FREE code to get it.

A full-blown war is raging against the Electoral College. But as activist groups become more desperate to overturn our way of electing presidents before voters go the polls in November 2020, their arguments become more absurd and hyperbolic. CNN recently ran a preposterous segment suggesting that James Madison called the Electoral College “evil,” a shameful distortion and an absurdity given that the man known as the Father of the Constitution had a direct hand in creating the institution. Others have made more serious but ultimately absurd indictments of the Electoral College. Among the biggest stretches made by critics of the...

<p>A Florida woman charged with killing her husband told investigators she accidentally stabbed him after tripping on a rug.</p> <p>The Orlando Sentinel reports Rachel Fidanian of Lakeland was charged this week with second-degree murder for the June 25 death of her 40-year-old husband, Bryant Fidanian.</p>

I argue for a living. I often deal with hacks, liars, and agenda-driven fanatics. But never in a quarter century of being in court rooms have I faced such a blizzard of constitutional illiteracy, technical ignorance, flabby reasoning, and outright lies as I have dealing with people who think our Second Amendment rights are up for debate.Our rights are not up for debate. But, as a courtesy, because talking is the way a free people should endeavor to solve problems, we should debate them anyway. Rational discussion beats the alternative – many of us are vets who saw the alternative...

The holidays can be a confusing time for some people. Especially if you’re “woke” and you’ve spend years reading articles about how you should annoy your relatives with your inane opinions about ObamaCare, global warming or Donald Trump. As an alternative to assure peace and harmony at your family Thanksgiving dinner, I offer you this alternative piece of advice:

The Department of Justice on Thursday accused Apple of willfully obstructing the FBI’s efforts to access the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, in what appeared to be an escalation of the simmering legal battle. "The government and the community need to know what is on the terrorist's phone and the government needs Apple's assistance to find out," prosecutors wrote in a new motion urging a federal judge in California to force Apple to comply with its demand. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym last month ordered Apple to build a piece of software disabling a security feature on the...

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use By: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use The primary authority for Creation Ministries International is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too. The first article on this page sums up what we believe the creationists’ attitude should be about various ideas and theories. The other articles provide examples of arguments that we think should...

Monday on MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews,” President Obama said the many Democrats against the Trans-Pacific Partnership fast track are “making political arguments that aren’t always entirely accurate,” like “the other side.” Obama said, “This is better than the Colombian free trade agreement, better than the Panama free trade agreement, and the Korea free trade agreement that we just passed a couple years ago. So, some of this has to do with, I think, people’s legitimate fears and concerns. Some of it has to do with politics. You know, Democrats aren’t adverse to

Arguments evolutionists should not use by Don Batten Published: 18 March 2014 (GMT+10) We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’ Here are arguments that we think evolutionists should not use. Composition of stock.xchng images Bait hook with prawn Don’t fall for the ‘bait and switch’ with slippery definitions used by evolutionists. Evolution means change (or change in gene/allele frequency) so evolution...

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: The Supreme Court, what's going on. It doesn't appear -- and you really can't make any judgments, final judgments on this. But the oral arguments do not appear to be going well for the regime. The regime's solicitor general is being laughed at on occasion, and the justices are poking holes in many regime arguments up there. But, as I say, oral arguments, you never know what indicator they are. It's like trying to read a jury. But still, it's entertaining and it's instructive and we'll pass it all on to you. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Oral arguments...

Alternate headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg not ready for her close-up: The Supreme Court rejected requests from news organizations Friday for live, televised coverage of this month’s historic arguments on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, but agreed to release audio recordings of the proceedings on the same day. [...] The justices have never allowed cameras inside the courtroom and decided not to make an exception for the health care case, despite what the court called “extraordinary public interest.” There goes my daytime viewing plans on March 26-28. A little more on the time allotted for arguments:

OK, so I heard a student say: Why do people dislike Obama? This is my answer to him. Check it out. I am sure my FR friends will agree that Obama is the WORST. Enjoy the links.

No, I'm not referring to marriages between blacks and whites, or Christians and Jews. I'm talking about marriages where one person is liberal and the other is conservative. To be more specific, I'm writing about my own marriage and I invite my esteemed AT readers to offer their advice. My husband and I were liberal Democrats for most of our lives. On occasion we used to talk about couples who were not politically aligned and wondered how they dealt with that in their relationship. Did they argue? Did they just not talk politics? Were they able to have interesting discussions...

this happened on facebook...