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

Don't make stupid arguments based on Trump truths.

If you supported Trump then you are as bad as a racist, sexist, homophobe who still believes the Earth is flat. So then it becomes a matter of semantics.

 

While many of us on the Sane/True Left can't stand liberals either, the piece quoted in the OP is sheer idiocy.

Debate with facts, logic and/or humor, or don't bother.

 

Although that land and those trees gained are lost elsewhere to rising ocean levels. Most people in Bangladesh will lose their land and become refugees. Since the US and the EU are responsible for the lions share of the CO2 added over the last century it would make sense that they become responsible for those 300 million Muslim refugees created by that melting ice.

Does that change your position a tad or will you embrace those hundreds of millions from Bangladesh?

 

What's your secret?

I have read a LOT of Isaac Asimov, and I can tell you that his sense of political reality was extremely lacking. World War II is a clear example where Asimov was wrong, violence was the correct answer, and if we'd had the balls to go in sooner, fewer people might have died in the gas chambers.

Yes, because logic and honest debate is a pointless endeavor when you're debating liberals. Believe me, I keep trying and getting nowhere. Ben Shapiro is brilliant at demolishing liberal arguments, and it's because he uses emotionally loaded language more effectively than liberals do. I think my favorite was when he said girls shouldn't be allowed into the Boy Scouts and a woman said, "Says who?" and Shapiro said, "It's in the name, 'Boy Scouts'." It's logical, it's honest, and it's emotionally loaded. It got a big laugh and a round of applause.

 

I can't speak for the others but if you want to know why I don't respond is that when faced with someone that trained at the Pee Wee Herman academy for debate I generally walk away after the second "I know what you are but what am I?". There's no point in continuing as there is nothing to be learned nor do I feel the need to have the last word in that scenario.

 

Lol...This is just the right-wing circle jerk for the day.
It keeps them from having to deal with reality.
Best to ignore rants like these and not feed the trolls.

 

Having previously been on a political forum that had two conservatives and the rest liberals, I had my work cut out. They would gang up on you and try their best to get under your skin. They drove off several conservatives who tried to post there. After first giving to them the same medicine, that just turned into an exchange of insults that derailed the threads. I searched for liberal debate tactics and learned how to handle them better. For one thing I don't let them get me riled up. They will use demeaning or cutesy names to get the process started. They will pick a single word in your post and run with it in an attempt to put you on the defensive. Stay on point. I found the best defense was reading up on logical fallacies. I saw just how many of their posts were nothing but fallacies. If you recognize the fallacy, you can counter it. I also try to interject some sarcasm toward those who think they are morally and intellectually superior. I will say that there are some lefties here that are much better at this than any of them on that other website. I've had to up my game a bit.

 

So...no discussion between actual individuals, just a lot of comments about "Them(TM)"?

Tell me, what do you wish to debate with me?

 

Actually debating a liberal is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Their radical left positions are so ridiculous, they are laughable.

 

Honest debate is hard to come by. Too often repeating talking points and boiler plate responses is what you get. Although that can be done by both sides. I have a few posts in various threads, what would you like to debate?

 

I'm the one asking you. You decided to make quite a long post attacking some nebulous "Them(TM)" who you feel are so awful, but what is it that you wish to discuss with an actual individual which you feel you are being denied?

 

Ha ha, this is how you debate anyone...if you want to appear to win.

If you want to have genuine discussion with someone, this is how you ensure that never happens.

 

Did you not read the topic of the thread? Debating a liberal, and I simply gave my experience with them in another forum. As we can see from the news, liberals aren't all that willing to perform honest debate, instead shouting down and intimidating the opposition. The same happens in various forums. I'd like to add, dslreports.com, a tech website with two political forums, a red room and a blue room. A couple months ago the site owner, a Trump hater, banned half the members of the red room because some people in the blue room complained about some posts of theirs. Not one blue room member was banned.

 

Simply fight feeling with facts. Liberals come unhinged in the face of true facts.

 

The question contains the answer. Design your "liberal" as a simplistic, stereotypical, cartoonish straw man to fit your level of forensic flair, and you then may possibly be able to hold your own against your formidable figment.

 

Sadly, the left can spew fallacy faster than we can prove them wrong.

 

Yeah, right, "facts" like this? Ones that have absolutely no foundation based in reality? Somebody makes a meme and it morphs into fact?

 

Oh wanh. I've seen YOU call people names here.

 

So?

So there are ********s in the world? How on earth am I, or anyone else on this forum for that matter, responsible for that?

Sounds to me like you aren't capable of treating people like individuals, instead lumping individuals into ill defined groups.

 

Cutesy names like libturd and dimocrap? Those kind?

Pffffffft.

 

From what I have seen on TV, the Right's idea of debate:

LIE

SHOUT

INSULT

INTERRUPT

REPEAT

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

 

You see me use those names or something similar? How about we run a scan of the posts here and count up name calling by the left vs name calling by the right and see who wins?

 

Go for it, bub.

 

Exactly...your style of debate...is basic TROLLING