How To Debate A Liberal
I don’t know about you, but for me, it used to be when I would debate liberals I could not help but think, “Are they actually this stupid that they can’t see the logic and facts that are being presented?” I would daydream about smacking them up along their head, then would snap out of my daydream and figure this was trying to argue with my son when he first hit his teen years, logic had nothing to do with this.
This whole thing came to a head during a debate with a family member. Many of us have siblings, cousins or other relatives that are on the other side of the political spectrum, debating them can be very disheartening, more so when you have family that is throwing insults, which is what most liberals do back at you. But I have always said, if you can stand up and debate those closest to you, people you love, then it is that much more comfortable then to arguing with people who mean little to you.
Liberals dismiss the views of the opposition as hateful
My conversation started during a family get togather; this person walked in, the first thing they said was that they had read my articles, they are full of nothing but angry, hateful bigotry and racism. This is the first thing all liberals will do, they aren’t saying that they can show error, racism, or prejudice, but because you don’t agree with their ideology, you must be showing this.
The attack was never about reading the articles; they knew I was conservative in my political thinking, thus whatever I stated or wrote, it should be dismissed without reading. All conservatives, in their mind, were hateful, racist, bigoted fascists, and why would you waste your time understanding what they wrote? They aren’t interested in knowing how the other side thinks, they want to dismiss their thinking, find their reasoning faulty, and then have you silenced.
This is a typical attack from the left, and we want to know how the other side thinks and believes, it gives us a base on how to debate them. They feel justified in accusing us of ignorance, and what they are declaring is, in reality, exactly what they are practicing.
Liberals Always Attack, They Will Try Anything To Put You On The Defense
The first thing you face is the accusation of a thought crime. It does not matter if it is real or not. They want to place you on the defensive, to have you reacting to their accusations; this way, they get to set the tone of the conversation. It is essential to steer the conversation back to what you are talking about and not allow them to place you on the defensive. In other words, throw it back at them.
I asked, “what part of what I wrote was hateful?” I was told that the name of our site should be changed to Angry White Men. I sat for a moment, then asked, “What part of what I wrote is hateful?”. When pressed for hateful statements, I was told that my attacks on illegal immigrants and Muslims were radical and offensive.
I found this interesting, as I pressed which article was hateful or radical. I was told they never waste their time reading my articles. This brought on the question, “I thought you said you read my articles? If you haven’t read them, how do you know if they are hateful or not?”
Over time I have found it necessary to catch the Liberal in their lie, when they say they read my articles, as a rule, they never have, just heard from someone else how bad it was.
Liberals Use Baseless Accusations To Change The Subject
The next attack was that my site was only for men; no women would ever read such nonsense. The original argument was failing; this brought about a need to change the topic to continue to put me on the defensive. At all costs, put me back on the defensive as the conversation was falling out of their control. I told them that the Demographics show that around 42% of my readers were women, and if this was only for men, why was it that I had a little less then a 50/50 split?
With this not working, they did not lose a beat, next accused me of racism, I was told my site was only for white people. I informed them that analytics also show the demographics and that about 30% of my readers were minorities. This was immediately held up in triumph as a sign of the racism of the site, so I asked them to Google the US demographics and tell me how many Americans are white, and how many are minorities.
The look of disgust was priceless when the demographics were about the same as my readership; in fact, my readership is better than the demographics, with 73% whites in this nation, the fact that I had a following of 30% minorities showed I was above the curve. It looks like my articles were not only appealing to just white people, but they were following the demographics of this nation.
Before starting any debate, there is one cardinal rule that has to be remembered – NEVER LOSE YOUR TEMPER. In many cases, it is easy to blow up and rage at the person you are debating with, but the second you leave rational thought for emotion, you lose the control and give the other side the victory before things have started.
Have I lost my temper? Of course I have, we all have, yet every time I do, the debate is lost before it even gets started.
Liberals Accuse Others Of What Their Side Is Doing.
The third attempt, and yes, there will be many attempts to steer the conversation back to where they control it, was that we conservatives are hateful and violent people. I decided at this point this needed to be put to rest, it had little bases in fact, so I began asking questions and insisted answers.
“Could you please show me examples of conservatives attacking people at Bernie or Warren rallies, or disrupting them because we don’t agree with what these two are saying?” This brought about stony silence, so I continued, “We are too busy working to waste our time on childish behavior like this!”
“Could it be that we conservatives attack speakers in colleges that they don’t agree with and there is nothing like the heckler’s veto, right? No? Wait that would be liberals doing this as we don’t waste our time with such things!” You could see the frustration growing.
“You are the hateful, violent ones!” was the reply, I replied, “Yes, we have groups like Antifa, who claim they are fighting what they claim are fascist while acting like Hitler’s old brown shirts!”
Question Authority Of The Speaker
The last attempt to discredit comes in questioning your right to comment. I was informed I had no reason to write articles; I was not a journalist; my education was in business and history studies.
This I also decided to put quickly to rest, “I know, going to Ivy league schools helped the journalist of CNN cover the Russian Collusion story so well, right?” then continued, “I know the press was so great with all their credentials when they claimed they had proof of collusion and that the boys that were attacked with MAGA hats were screaming racist replies as the Native Americans?”
I watch Ben Shapiro; I love his reply when professors use this tact, he tells them, “The credentials don’t matter, they are useless, answer the question!”
I run into this all the time on Quora, people who claim to have excellent credentials and then claim I have no idea what I am talking about, yet when I say I could care less about their credentials and show the evidence to disprove what I stated, they go silent. While I do have credentials to speak on many subjects, it is more entertaining to shut them up by demanding facts then fight over who has the better education.
When Liberals See No Chance Of Victory, They Flee
I would love to say that our conversation then became civil, we had a great discussion about the merits of liberalism vs. conservatism, but that was not the case. The left isn’t willing to listen to another perspective; they would rather flee than find fault in their thinking.
I remember years ago watching a debate between the top scientist that believed in evolution and the ones that didn’t. Each side presented their case, and you quickly found that the creationist countered each case brought up by the evolutionist as he was much more prepared.
In the end, they asked one of the speakers, “You have had nothing but holes in your theories presented to you, are you willing to denounce what you are clinging to?” The reply sums up what you see with the left, “While what I believe in is full of holes, is questionable, but the alternative is to believe that there may be a higher power, things were brought about by the miraculous, I would rather hang on a flawed theory then accept the other!”
You can bring facts to the left, show the failure in every nation where socialism was implemented, the fallacy of saying our security and borders don’t need to be maintained; disagreement is not hateful, it will not matter. They are so full of hate for the other side they would rather hang on to an open lie than face the truth.
To the left, questioning their dogma is evil. It is viewed in the same manner the inquisitors of old viewed someone that dared to challenge the church belief and authority. There will be no debate; you should be destroyed.
You will not change the majority of these people’s minds, but you can destroy their declarations one by one, they will quickly lose interest in the debate and start attacking. This immediately shows the onlookers the weakness of their argument, contrary to claims, is not based on education or facts, but rather it is based on emotions, facts matter little to them.
I tell everyone, I try to debate civilly, but when that does not work, I go in for the kill, destroy every accusation and silly lie that the other side is spewing, expose them for all to see. With family, I tend to hold back; they are family after all but does not mean I need to allow them or anyone else to silence the truth.