How Liberals Debate

[red states rule]

That that "article" is "good" is your personal opinion, which is subjective. That is a fact.



Is that supposed to be one of your "facts?" What have you conducted a double-blind survey of a broad-based random sample or something? Who's insulted anyway? I don't care what your opinion is, I'm just pointing out the glaring flaws in your logic and the simple fact that subjective opinions are not facts. Sorry, but that's fair game when you start a thread about debate tactics.


You said that already. Saying something over and over doesn't magically make it true.

Right now you are using liberal debate tactics 1, 5 , and 8

 

[wiggles]

1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

So what are you arguing that subjective opinions are facts? Sweetheart, you need to stop eating all those retard sandwiches.

5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

I haven't changed the subject at all. This whole thread's been about the merits of your original post all along. It's the same subject now as it was 15 posts ago.

8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.

All you're saying is that what you pasted into the original post is a "good article" full of "facts." I'm explaining to you that it's full of the writer's subjective opinions, which you happen to share.
Again, slowly, subjective opinions are not facts. My opinion that the color chartreuse is pretty doesn't mean it's a cold hard fact that it is pretty.

 

[red states rule]

1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

So what are you arguing that subjective opinions are facts? Sweetheart, you need to stop eating all those retard sandwiches.

5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

I haven't changed the subject at all. This whole thread's been about the merits of your original post all along. It's the same subject now as it was 15 posts ago.

8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.

All you're saying is that what you pasted into the original post is a "good article" full of "facts." I'm explaining to you that it's full of the writer's subjective opinionshttp://newsbusters.org/node/11212, which you happen to share.
Again, slowly, subjective opinions are not facts. My opinion that the color chartreuse is pretty doesn't mean it's a cold hard fact that it is pretty.

For an article you say is full of the writer's subjective opinionship you are sure proving him right

 

[wiggles]

You're a joke.

 

[red states rule]

You're a joke.

You are losing

Now you are using liberal debate tactics # 5, 11, and 14

 

[wiggles]

...and a last word freak who's using liberal debate tactic #1

1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

 

[red states rule]

...and a last word freak who's using liberal debate tactic #1

1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

So far you have not proved a single one of the facts on how a lib debates to be wrong

Now you are using liberal debate tactics 3. 7. and 11

 

[wiggles]

Oh yeah, well you're using liberal debate tactic #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

Prove you're not.

 

[red states rule]

Oh yeah, well you're using liberal debate tactic #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

Prove you're not.

Nice but lame attempt. Keep trying , one day you might be able to actually debate

 

[wiggles]

you talking about actual debate - that is just rich

I still haven't seen you prove that puppies aren't ugly.

 

[red states rule]

SARGE’S GUIDE TO LIBERAL DEBATE TACTICS

There is an old joke about prisoners in a penitentiary who have heard each other’s jokes so many times, they assigned numbers to them and shout those out, rather than retelling the joke. This Guide is intended for Battalion S2 Commenters to use in the same manner. This post will be available in the “Links” section on the right hand side of the home page.
Eventually, Bn S2 will have enough Liberal and Conservative Commenters to have a lively debate, and to save time and bandwidth, you can refer to these Liberal Debate Tactics by number when they occur.

They are not presented in any particular order.


1. SHOW UP WITH YOUR TALKING POINTS. Make sure you have something that you feel will show your opponents in a negative light, and make that the subject of the discussion.

2. DEMONIZE YOU OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.

3. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DOING #2 ABOVE, SUPPORT HIM IMMEDIATELY.

4. ACCUSE YOU OPPONENT OF SAYING SOMETHING HE DIDN’T. Attempt to define his statements in a negative light. Interpret them this way and state it as fact that he did actually say it. NEVER ask him…always TELL him what his meaning was.

5. CLAIM THAT IT IS “OLD NEWS” AND NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. This applies especially when the discussion turns to the misdeeds of Democrat Party Leadership.

6. QUOTE AN UNSOURCED NEW ARTICLE. Always quote the article selectively, or describe it in a general manner.

7. IF ASKED DIRECT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEWS YOU HAVE PROVIDED, RESPOND INDIRECTLY. Never actually answer the specific of the question.

8. IF ASKED TO SOURCE YOU NEWS ARTICLE, IGNORE THE QUESTION.

9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGNCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.

10. IF THE PARTY LEADERSHIP IS ATTACKED, ATTEMPT TO TURN THE TABLES BY INFERRING THAT SOMEONE IN YOUR OPPONENTS PARTY IS JUST AS BAD.

11. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. Try to do this before he has an opportunity to. Try to infer that it you have given him multiple opportunities to do so. Do it even if the question has been answered. If he misses the question and asks you to repeat it DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR HIS BENEFIT).

12. RESORT TO INSULTS. Try to question you opponent’s masculinity, his resolve, ANYTHING, but try to diminish and demean him. (This is know as the “LBJ Rule” codified by him thus: “Accuse your opponent of being a pig fornicator, then make him deny it.) REMEMBER, IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO THIS TACTIC, IT MEANS YOUR OPPONENT IS WINNING!

13. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized. Rush Limbaugh is currently the Demon of Choice.

14. SPEAK CRYPTICALLY. Try to make it difficult for people to divine your meaning

15. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points (see #1 above)

16. APPEAR TO AGREE. You will need to do this in order to achieve #15.

17. CLAIM YOUR OPPONENT IS BEING UNREASONABLE OR WON’T LISTEN TO REASON, AND LEAVE IN A HUFF.

18. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post, then scream bloody murder to the Moderator.

19. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.
http://battalions2.blogspot.com/2006/01/sarges-guide-to-liberal-debate-tactics.html

 

[wiggles]

 

[manu1959]

good one .... the clintonistas were sure out of control during somalia and bosnia

 

[wiggles]

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Wow, I just saw Redstaterules in both of those brilliant comics.

 

[wiggles]

What comics? Those are articles filled with facts!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Over the last several days, I have noticed a pattern among the lefties in their debate tactics.

After doing some research I have found the debate tactics libs use when confronting those who disagree with them

Here is a list of tactics liberals use to debate. Ready them. Study them. Be ready the next time you debate a liberal

Ahhh...so that's what you call cut-and-paste, 'research'.

1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

Especially when the facts consistently prove your assertions wrong

2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.

Facts are neither conservative or liberal. It's just that conservatives find them to be inconvenient obstacles to their dogmatic adherence to their ideology.

3. Get as personal and vicious as you can, maybe it will distract your opponent from his train of thought.

Just as they are neither liberal nor conservative, facts are also impersonal. They only become "personal and vicious" when they undermine conservative dogma.

4. If you are unable to insult him with the usual insults such as 'racist', 'homophobe', or 'bigot', then insult someone else on his side (someone related to the subject under discussion is preferable but not required).

There are so many on the right that CAN be classified as racists, homophobes and bigots, and don't forget sexist pigs...James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage Weiner, Glen Beck. The list is almost endless.

5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

That is a favorite conservative tactic. FOX Noise ran coverage of Anna Nichole Smith rather than cover the unfolding scandal at Walter Reed Army Hospital. And you've done it yourself old son!

6. Talk loudly and rapidly, don't allow your opponent to get a word in. Remember the more time you consume, the less time your opponent will have.

Bill O'Reilly...SHUT UP!

7. Use hyperbole as an example of your opponent's argument and suggest that that is what they are suggesting.

Only you would consider measured argument and the presentation of facts to support said argument as hyperbole.

8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.

You don't need to purposely misunderstand what is being said. You truly don't understand.

9. Make up 'facts' most people don't check them and anyway, you'll be long gone by the time the truth is known, and so will the audience.

There are sufficient facts on record that there is no need to make them up. Except in the case of intellectually bankrupt right-wing noise machine which is free to make up anything it likes when it can find nothing else to support its assertions.

10. Expect perfection. Focus on the slightest flaw in your opponent's argument, any kind of mistake, grammatical, spelling, contextual, anything no matter how slight is sufficient to deflect attention away from how vacuous your arguments are.

One only needs to watch Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkind and the rest of the right-wing talking heads to realize just how truly vacuous there arguments are. There's absolutely no need to focus on the little flaws as there are flaws in their arguments big enough to drive a semi through. The same can be said of those who cut-and-paste their talking points.

11. Act insulted. Take umbrage at the slightest contradiction and act as if it is a personal insult. This will make your personal attack seem warranted and just.

YOu don't need to act insulted, you are insulted. And in your self-righteousness, you feel you insults are completely justified.

12. Mug the camera or audience while your opponent is speaking, make faces, sneering is good, head-shaking better, and looking toward the ceiling is best [notice the avoidance of the word Heaven, Liberals avoid words of a religious nature WM]. Let the audience know you disagree with your opponent (even if you’ve no idea what he’s saying)

One can only shake one's head or look imploringly to the heavens when observing the obtuseness and utter inanity of the right-wing's most virulent proponents.

13. Use condescending laughter as much as you can. It serves two purposes, first, it dismisses your opponent as being unworthy of your respect and second, it shows your contempt for his arguments. This is a very powerful tool and can really annoy your opponent and disrupt his train of thought.

There's nothing condescending about the laughter evoked by many right wing pundits. Being irony deficient, they are unable to comprehend just how ridiculous they sound.

14. You’re an arrogant Liberal; demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority by acting in a condescending manner.

The presentation of facts is not condescension unless, of course, you find those facts threaten to undermine the house of cards you call an ideology.

15. Forget how many of the wealthiest in this nation are Liberals, always beat the drum of “Rich Republicans” and “working class Democrats.”

As long as they earn it by the dint of their own honest labor, it doesn't really matter how wealthy a person is, Republican or Democrat.

16. Finally, always remember style trumps substance. Know it, Live it.

Unfortunately, you lack both style and substance.

 

[red states rule]

I know the left is jealous of Sean and Rush. Your Dead Air America netowrk was to be the liberal answer to them

Libs cannot debate on talk radio or on message boards

 

[maineman]

Ahhh...so that's what you call cut-and-paste, 'research'.




Especially when the facts consistently prove your assertions wrong



Facts are neither conservative or liberal. It's just that conservatives find them to be inconvenient obstacles to their dogmatic adherence to their ideology.



Just as they are neither liberal nor conservative, facts are also impersonal. They only become "personal and vicious" when they undermine conservative dogma.



There are so many on the right that CAN be classified as racists, homophobes and bigots, and don't forget sexist pigs...James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage Weiner, Glen Beck. The list is almost endless.



That is a favorite conservative tactic. FOX Noise ran coverage of Anna Nichole Smith rather than cover the unfolding scandal at Walter Reed Army Hospital. And you've done it yourself old son!



Bill O'Reilly...SHUT UP!



Only you would consider measured argument and the presentation of facts to support said argument as hyperbole.



You don't need to purposely misunderstand what is being said. You truly don't understand.



There are sufficient facts on record that there is no need to make them up. Except in the case of intellectually bankrupt right-wing noise machine which is free to make up anything it likes when it can find nothing else to support its assertions.



One only needs to watch Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkind and the rest of the right-wing talking heads to realize just how truly vacuous there arguments are. There's absolutely no need to focus on the little flaws as there are flaws in their arguments big enough to drive a semi through. The same can be said of those who cut-and-paste their talking points.



YOu don't need to act insulted, you are insulted. And in your self-righteousness, you feel you insults are completely justified.



One can only shake one's head or look imploringly to the heavens when observing the obtuseness and utter inanity of the right-wing's most virulent proponents.



There's nothing condescending about the laughter evoked by many right wing pundits. Being irony deficient, they are unable to comprehend just how ridiculous they sound.



The presentation of facts is not condescension unless, of course, you find those facts threaten to undermine the house of cards you call an ideology.



As long as they earn it by the dint of their own honest labor, it doesn't really matter how wealthy a person is, Republican or Democrat.



Unfortunately, you lack both style and substance.

well said, bully!

although I must admit I do not know why you bother.... "debating" with that guy is like br'er rabbit punching the tar baby.

 

[red states rule]

You get your ass kicked worse then Mondale did in 84

Like your Dem buddies you are now using the cut and run plan in your battles here