Has anybody ever noticed this? If you want to really engage someone on the Left, all you have to do is speak in soundbites that convey only a passing acquaintance with a subject and they'll talk to you all day. Or whenever someone on the Left decides to dismantle a conservative argument, they pick the most simplistic, weak-tea version of the argument to address. Remember how much discussion there was around the Obamacare debates? There were plenty of people on the right making "smart" arguments about why Obamacare was bad policy. But which argument and which version of the opposition did you mostly hear? Sarah Palin wrote on Facebook that she didn't want her baby to have to go before Obama's "death panel". There have been plenty of studies debunking many of the alarmist claims regarding global warming. But many on the Left would rather wait for someone to mention the Bible or say it was hot last January and then act like that's the only thing anybody's said. Cherry-picking strawman arguments is not a good indicator of intellect, but so many people on the left think they're smart because they wait until the silliest version of an argument comes through so they can dismiss the argument altogether. I actually think this tendency backfired and it's what caused Trump to win. The media thought they were going to do to Trump what they did to Bush, Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin, and many other Republicans, which is bang the gong over everything he says. But Trump was smart to stick to his guns and not apologize and people respected his plainspokenness, candor, and guts.