“How to Debate a Liberal,” a systematic guide to trouncing a lefty opponent.

Spoken like someone with exactly -0- experience earning a living in the private sector.

 

So you see them taxing as very generous by giving back the money?

47 percent pay no federal income taxes for the purpose of supporting the Feds. Taxes they do pay they believe will later be returned to them. But little do they know that over the long term, they will run out of ways to tax us all. Why? We won't have any money left.

 

To liberals emotions are facts, so really there is no need to mention them when looking to frame an intelligent debate. Although I'm not certain one can actually have an intelligent debate with a stark raving mad liberal anyway...

 

and you prove the point with a fact free argument. Thanks.

 

Stark raving mad liberals do not provide intelligent debate, that is a fact. Care to dispute it?

 

Stark raving mad people of any political persuasion are not capable of intelligent debate. It has usually been my experience that most "stark raving mad" people politically speaking have been from so called right wing circles.

 

Shapiro's main tactic is the classic strawman. Not original or interesting, and all too common these days.

 

As an Independent, I've often found myself in the cross-hairs of both sides. I cannot say that I've seen a style that is consistently unique adopted by either side. Both sides you similar tactics of the good, the bad, and the ugly. I have dealt people that have supported their argument (on both sides) and I've seen people refuse to do anything but ram their agenda down other people's throats on both sides. I've seen people debate by been rude and others that debate by claiming to be self-righteous, on both sides. I have seen people that insert their thoughts and personal perspective during debate, and others that refuse to do anything but parrot the meme of their Party's position.
As far as liberal media vs conservative media, I've seen more bullying of guest by liberal media outlets than I have by conservative media outlets. I've seen both liberal and conservative media outlets report bold-face lies (without apology) while at the same-time relentlessly run a story into the ground when someone on the other-side of their political court says something incorrect (demanding an immediate apology). And then if someone does apologize (usually only because it cost them somehow financially), then they follow by analyzing the quality of that apology.

 

Yes I'm blissfully clueless on who Shapiro even is because I was never very welcoming to seeking others dictate to me how to think. But maybe I'm just a rebel.

 

They didn't get it from the schoolyard. More like TV.

 

Item #2 from the OP. There ya go sonny.

 

I've been an entrepreneur since I was 15 years old, owned and operated countless endeavours. Of course the most profitable ones were the criminal ones because of all the political red-tape of government wanting their cut, but the point is that the government gave itself that right.

However; Article the seventh (aka the 5th Amendment)... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So yes, I expect our greedy government to give-something-back...

 

No, I see it as an obligation per the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

"If the real number is 47%" or whatever it might be, the reason some people pay nothing to the IRS is because they are earning below half of the poverty-line. And since the FPL is set at $23,540, that means it only applies to people earning less than $11,770. This includes all children and retirees, plus several handicap and disabled, plus the 10% of our population that we house in incarceration, plus the homeless (if they're included in the count), plus the unemployed and under employed. And I'm personally of the opinion that out FPL is set far too low for today's cost of living. I think the bar should be pushed up closer to $50,000 because in a land that we keep bragging to the rest of the world about being "so great" it would be nice to point to something that proves it.

 

Of course, it's found on both sides. It's just that once you start crossing the intellectually dishonest and/or feeble off the list, there aren't a whole lot of lefties left. Dave Rubin is probably the best of the left that I've seen, but it's a whole lot of desert from one oasis to the next.

 

Demand that he support his arguments with something other than fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, and point it out whenever he fails.
/thread

 

I would say that first we have to look at the demographic ratio that comprise any such list for starters. The greater majority of the media is dominated by liberals and so are many of the forums I've explored, but there are also established "safe-havens" on both-sides that aren't bipartisan. Although eligible Democrat voters slightly appear to outnumber eligible Republican voters (according to voter registration numbers) most typical voters aren't politically actively engaged in political conversations. So we drop down the list to only people that are interested in actively participating in political debates. We find ourselves left with professional pundits (paid for and owned PR campaigners by their establishment) and the rest are private individuals (volunteering their two-cents). The professionals are coached, but private individuals are only influenced. So are we talking about the professional personalities or private citizens?

 

I don't bother with trying to figure out if somebody is a professional personality or just a normal moe. I only care about whether the arguments are honest. Similarly, I don't care about the demographics because those aren't arguments, either.

Does somebody bring something to the table of ideas?

What I have noticed is that even amongst the most honest, the desired end results are at opposite spectrums, so even if we agree on all the premises, we are going to disagree with the conclusion because you want X and I want Y. It's then no longer a question of who is correct, but rather how do we get to opposite ends of the field. You stay on your side of happy valley, I stay on mine, and we can both live in peace.

That's why I want a wall. That's why I want more power to the states and less to the federal government. You stay in california and I'll stay in texas. We can both fight to defend the country, but once the fighting is finished, you go back to your side, and I'll go back to mine. If you want socialized medicine and transgender restrooms, talk to your governor. If I want open carry assault rifles and creationism taught in schools, I'll talk to my governor. Leave Trump alone because his job is to allow us the freedom to have both.

 

I'm confused, I've been hearing for weeks that liberals won't let conservatives speak at colleges?

You mean...right wingers are living in an alternate reality bubble? No way!

 

They are relevant factors because if you have ten people in a room debating (eight of them Democrat and two Republican), and four people are acting like jerks (three Democrats and one Republican) then of course it'll end up looking like more Democrats are being nasty even though 50% of the Republicans in the room were acting nasty compared to 40% of the Democrats in the room, because it's three Democrat jerks compared to one Republican jerk.

We all appreciate mature debate that ends with mutually acceptable result, in-which everyone leaves happy. Unfortunately we struggle in a society of "Free-speech" to respect the necessity for maturity. As I mention above, organisations that promote "so-called" good debate skills (like toastmasters) steer clear of teaching relevant, productive, mature debate skills to focus on achieving popularity points among the audience. In the South, they'll smile in your face when they stab you in the back, but in the North they stare you in the face (with vicious malice) as they slide the knife in your gut. At least that's the cultural-divide on the East Coast, I'm not sure how it's done out West, but I'm posing that this is a cultural and degree of intelligence that defines these different trends. When I'm being a jerk, I'm not one to be sneaky about it, however I'm selective about being a jerk to someone I feel is already being a jerk (not just for the sake of dominating someone that holds a different opinion than me).

 

How is that relevant? Good ideas don't require a majority, nor a minority. One guy out of a billion comes up with a good idea, so we disregard it because everybody else disagrees?

Your usage of the pronoun "we" harkens back to our disagreement. We don't have to agree. Only I have to agree. You can disagree if you want, but that's just you.

That's just sophistry.

Another good reason for you to stay on your side, and I'll stay on mine.

 

But you don't know that, any more than the ecofreaks know it's bad.

So do you have some way of knowing you haven't merely convinced them you're too stupid to bother with?

 

Fair enough

 

I already explained this. CO2 is tree food, and quite a bit of the world is under a lot of ice. A bit of warming will give us more trees and land.

I don't care. I'm not in a popularity contest. You can either accept my arguments or rebuttals, or... not.

 

I doubt you're in a position to explain anything.

Swell, but you don't know that's all it will give us, so your rosy assurances are every bit as worthless as the prophecies of doom from the Gaea worshippers.

 

republicans are all about tax cuts for the rich and trickle down, eventually the people will see that again and they will lost again, they ran on other things, but tax cuts for the rich is their real goals