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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by RWNJ, Apr 15, 2017.

  1. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    59,283
    Thanks Received:
    10,846
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +37,398
     
  2. Dale Smith
    Online

    Dale Smith Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    14,972
    Thanks Received:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Ratings:
    +18,818

    Can you cite me an example of you ever trying to debate me? You have said I was "crazy" and that "La Raza" isn't even racist. You can't debate anything worth a shit...all leftard talking points filled with denial and ignorance....it's what you do best. Pick a topic and let's debate it and let the board members decide which one of us makes the better argument.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    79,987
    Thanks Received:
    12,620
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +37,874
    Oh come off it Doodles. Your entire OP was completely not about debate at all --- it was about "framing" and ad hominem and deflection and how to think you "won" based on a shitpile of fallacies, themselves built out of other fallacies. You can't even decide whether your target is "Liberals" or "leftists". I called that conflation out when the thread was first started, and you just ran away. So much for "trouncing" huh. :eusa_hand:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    143,597
    Thanks Received:
    22,826
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +62,054
    If that is your "A" Game.......you got a lot of learning to do
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  5. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,246
    For as far as I read in the OP, the approaches offered depend on one thing: attacking and tearing down the opponent's argument/position. That's all well and good if one can do so effectively and soundly; however, taking that approach doesn't do a thing to give merit to one's own position(s). It only shows the inadequacy of one or several positions that are not one's own. Thus, unless the realm of possible positions is in fact binary, that is not a winning approach.

    I know a debate on political matters between two individuals seems to many people, most notably shortsighted folks, like a chess match, but it's not, other than that it's between two individuals. The discriminating differences are:
    • The range of possible outcomes/approaches to resolving the subject under debate is usually vast, and the range of possible outcomes from implementing whatever be the course of action for which the two parties advocate is vastly greater than two, which is the quantity of possible outcomes to any chess match played to completion.
    • A chess match, like any sporting competition, is played largely for its own sake and the impact of winning and losing pertains, by and large, to the competitors. Others are generally not greatly affected in any material way by the outcome, no matter what it is.

      That is simply not so regarding political debate and the attendant outcomes and go-forward approaches resulting from elected and appointed officials winning or losing the debate. (Winning or losing a debate here is of no real value.) The goal of a policy debate among the people who make policy is to effect outcomes that are better for all, or for more than merely the simple majority that defines the lower limit of a quantity called "most."

    Appearances can be deceiving. What one makes one's debate opponent look like is one thing, but it has nothing to do with the sufficiency and rigor, or lack thereof, in one's own lines of argument.

    Additionally, though emotional lines of argument such as those described in the above example you've given are appealing to the hoi polloi, they don't hold water with rational thinkers.

    That is the very essence of an ad hominem attack/line of argument, which almost always is unsound from square one.

    Spotting and noting the inconsistencies in another's line of argument is important, it's the right thing to do. The thing is that the inconsistencies given in the quote just above are false comparisons. The things compared are contextually unrelated. For example, having marriage equality has nothing to do with who performs the marriage. Similarly, who pays for heath care services provided has nothing to do with who provides the palliative services.



    I stopped reading the OP at that the last quote I've noted above. I'd hoped to see something substantive in the OP's suggested approaches to debating. I found only unsound foolishness and puerile balderdash; thus I stopped reading.
     
  6. Timmy
    Offline

    Timmy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Messages:
    14,801
    Thanks Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,024
    Well I started a thread comparing nukes to guns if you want to join the fun.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. edward37
    Offline

    edward37 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    3,756
    Thanks Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    rightwinger bet 3/4 of the dolts don't know who Underwood is
     
  8. Campbell
    Offline

    Campbell Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,863
    Thanks Received:
    642
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +2,189
    Republicans really don't give a shit as long as they're not in the picture.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    84,740
    Thanks Received:
    10,352
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +40,994
    Why would they? Most Trump voters aren't glued in front of the TV in mom's basement 24/7
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    113,759
    Thanks Received:
    13,447
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +41,517
    Can you direct us to an example of you doing the above here at USMB?

    lol
     

Share This Page