Intro: The
Manual to Debating a Liberal, from a former Liberal
A mere
year ago, I was a liberal Democrat. I fell under many of the things I describe
below, and I used many of the tactics that I describe below. After my ideology
changed (to Republican), thanks to much research and being realistic on my
part, I realized that many conservatives simply cannot engage liberals in
debates very well. Not because conservatives aren’t right- because I truly
believe that they are- but because liberals are very good at playing politics.
And included in politics are their tactics in debates.
I now
present to you the following guide, on how to defeat liberals in debates. I’m
pretty confident I would have shredded myself apart from a year ago if I tried
to debate myself using this guide, and I think you’ll make good use of it as
well. E-mail me at
sunnyd1182@yahoo.com if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Sunny
S. Sidhu
Former
Liberal Democrat, Current Conservative Republican, Future Conservative
Republican
Section 1:
The Liberal Mindset
In
order to debate liberals, we must first understand their mindset. Why they
think the way they do, why they believe in their particular stances, and,
generally, their world view. This can be summed up rather easily by looking at
the types of people who ARE liberals. There are two key groups we must look at
(note, however, that there are many exceptions in these groups, but in
general, most liberals will fall under at least one of the following
categories)
The
“Intellectuals”
- College Students, especially those in Ivy Leagues
- College Professors, especially those in Ivy Leagues
- Other teachers, education administrators, and education policymakers
- Journalists and Media personalities
The “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck”
- African Americans, Latinos, and other “minorities”
- Senior Citizens
- The poor and middle class, especially those who live in urban areas
- Feminists
- Environmentalists
Now, there are
undoubtedly other groups that could be considered key players in the
Democratic/liberal movement, but the above are the most often cases you will
run into. There are distinct reasons for why the aforementioned two groups
exist; and these reasons must be understood if you are to properly engage a
liberal in a debate. For, once again, we must understand their mindsets.
The
“Intellectuals”:
The “Intellectuals”
are an interesting group of people. They’re typically your academics, people
who have very strong academic accomplishments, or believe that they do (these
can be interchanged). They often think of themselves as smart people, and
associate with like-minded “smart people.” They’re especially found in Ivy
League colleges, though this phenomenon easily exists in non-Ivy League
schools as well. It extends beyond just the college and university scene,
however; other education institutions have similar groups, and the media is
full of such people.
These people are
usually fairly responsible, fairly intelligent, and are going in a good
direction in life- at least academically. However, all of them fall victim to
one trap: they believe that everyone else is just as responsible and
intelligent as them. Thus, they fall into an ideological world view, which
believes that everything can be perfect, and that cases of “human nature” such
as greed simply do not exist. (This explains why far left liberals supported
communism- they thought people would be happy with “to each according to their
need”…clearly, that did not work)
These people believe
that things like abortion should be legal, because people will be responsible
with it, and not take advantage of it. These people believe that drugs should
be legalized, for the same reasons. These people believe that children should
be exposed to sex and violence (including things that can be seen as the
promotion of them), because children would be responsible with such matters.
These people do not think things on television and mass media should be
regulated, thinking that all people are responsible enough to handle indecent
material. They believe all criminals can be “rehabilitated” and become
responsible like them, and thus they oppose things like the death penalty. The
list goes on and on, but the key thing you must know about these people:
they’re frequently not in touch with reality itself- they’re like bookworms.
They don’t realize the problems in the world for what they really are, but
think they do.
Therefore, they fall
victim to an ideological world view which simply does not work in reality:
liberalism.
Everything these intellectuals do now has been done before, in essence: Karl Marx once presented an ideological leftist world view. It didn’t work, but it sure sounded great when he presented his ideology. What looks good on paper may not look good in reality, and that is one thing the “intellectual left” does not understand.
These people also
fundamentally believe they are right, and will refuse to argue with anyone who
they think is of “less merit” than them; they’re very elitist to a sense, and
therefore blindly hold to their ideology despite any arguments thrown at them.
It is Ivy League arrogance, journalistic elitism, and whatever else you can
name, at its finest.
The “Victims of
the Democratic Playing Card Deck”
This group makes up
the core of the voting element as far as the Democratic Party goes, and thus
helps the most to promote the liberal cause. These are the people who think
they’ve been wrong or disadvantaged, or have been told that they’ve
been wronged or disadvantaged. They’re also being told that the opposing
parties (Republicans and conservatives) are out to wrong them and disadvantage
them even further.
These are the things
commonly referred to as “playing the race/age/gender/class card.” This is used
VERY often by liberals, so get ready to hear a lot of it. It works, it is
effective, and this second group of people- the victims- falls for it very
easily. As a result, they become slaves of the liberal mindset.
Look no further than
how the Democrats try to scare African Americans into believing that
Republicans are “holding them down”, how the Democrats try to scare middle
class Americans into thinking Republicans are “hurting the middle class,” and
how the Democrats try to scare women into thinking Republicans are “against
their rights.” Democrats also frequently try to scare Senior Citizens into
thinking Republicans want to “destroy Social Security.” Look at the key words
mentioned in these accusations; against,holding down, hurting, destroying.
In essence, it is
fear mongering targeted at certain groups of people in society, and it works.
These Democrats and liberals attempt to spin the issues into backing up this
fear mongering, and people listen to it. And as a result, this entire second
group is formed- the “victims” of the Democratic Playing Card Deck.
These people often do
not know much about the issues, especially as far as fact and reality goes.
What they DO think they know, however, is that Republicans and conservatives
are completely against them and trying to hold them down (or their issue) in
general. They believe the way they do, because of the total spin and fear
mongering they hear from Democratic and liberal leaders. They then go out and
vote for these said Democrats, and become strong liberals, mostly out of fear
and loathing of the other side- values instilled into them. Furthermore, they
become very likely to start calling conservatives “bigots” and “racists”
because of the lies that the liberal left has drilled into their heads.
Key Liberal
Characteristics
Based on the previous
two groups, you’ve got one group of people that is ideological, unrealistic,
and elitist. Then you’ve got a second group that is fearful, angry, resentful,
and therefore has a closed mind towards reality- or any other person’s
opinions if they differ from their own.
Section 2: Liberals and their Tactics
Now that we
understand the two key elements of liberalism, we can now move on to debates
themselves. In debates, liberals tend to use a select few “tactics” very
frequently; no matter who the person is, if they’re a liberal, they always
make use of the same arsenal. This is likely due to the fact that they’re all
promoting the same unrealistic philosophy, liberalism itself, and that
liberalism can only be argued effectively in one manner: through the use of
these tactics.
The reasoning will be
obvious once we are done looking at the weapons themselves. Here they are, in
no particular order:
Tactic Number One:
Interruption
This one will be used
often, throughout the span of an entire debate. If you, as a conservative (or
even moderate), are attempting to make a point- especially if you have
numbers, facts, and figures to back your point of view up- the common liberal
will use this weapon often. Why? Because it stops you from getting your point
across- and if you don’t get your point across, you cannot win a debate.
The liberal sees
this, the liberal knows this, and thus the liberal will interrupt you often.
If the liberal has no numbers, facts, or figures to prove their point with (a
common occurrence), the liberal will use the interruption tactic even more.
The interruption tactic can be used in combination with another rather strong
tactic, bomb-throwing, which we cover next.
Tactic Number Two:
Bomb-Throwing
This one is not used
as much, as it tends to get offensive, but when it is used, it can lead a
liberal to victory in a debate through nothing more than sheer shock-value. It
is called “bomb-throwing,” and essentially it is the use of name calling,
accusations, and vicious attacks to shut down the opposition. These attacks
are usually not even true, but this does not matter- for the attacks are only
designed to do three things:
- Shock the audience and perhaps paint you out to be evil and wrong
- Coerce you to change the subject by trying to defend yourself from these attacks (a natural human impulse on your part)
- Anger you and force you to lose your cool, and thus appear immature and unprofessional
Time and time again,
liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are
simply not ready for it. Conservatives are also generally more classy,
relaxed, and well-mannered than their liberal counterparts, so they often do
not know how to respond to such viciousness. This trend it starting to change
as conservatives have “rebuilt their defenses,” but many still fall for this
liberal trap of bomb-throwing.
Tactic Number
Three: Raising the Volume
This is yet another
tactic that is geared at conservatives in particular, and preys off the fact
that conservatives are generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered
people than liberals. This one makes use of another fact: conservatives are
quieter people than liberals, and not anywhere near as fierce. Liberals
realize this, and they use it to their advantage when it comes to debate.
Essentially, they
raise the volume. They’ll yell, scream, talk aggressively, and be particularly
fierce and provoking throughout the debate. They do this to anger their
opposition and try to throw them off, and they also do it to try to weaken the
conservative’s resolve. They also want to engage the opposition in a “shouting
match,” as this plays to a liberal’s favor, since they already do it (and
since it makes the audience think of the opposition badly). Additionally, this
tactic serves another purpose: it motivates other liberals and gets them
pumped up, to the point where they might even get involved in the debate (see
tactic five).
Tactic Number
Four: The Populist Bomb
This one is a tactic
that seems to have been developed by one group of liberals to promote the
growth of another; essentially, the “intellectual” left employs the Populist
Bomb often to get people to join the droves of the “Victims of the Democratic
Playing Card Deck” group. Of course, these said people do not realize they’re
being dragged into such a group, but the liberals know it, as they’re trying
to get more people on their side.
So what is a Populist
Bomb? It’s something known as “telling people what they want to hear.” It
employs frequent use of the race card, the class card, and all sorts of other
things that we covered earlier- the same very things that created the second
group of liberals, the “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck.” It
frequently attacks Republicans and any other opposition for the “screwing
over” of certain groups (even though these attacks are usually totally false),
and it also makes excessive use of “spin.”
By “spin” I mean the
Populist Bomb will present some sort of god-like plan to give people some
benefits, such as health insurance, while also saying things about how taxes
won’t be raised. While these two things contradict each other when one looks
into the finances behind such proposals, common people don’t know this, and
therefore they’ll believe both statements, and will applaud the liberal who
presents them- the Populist Bomb at its finest.
The Populist Bomb is
a tactic used by liberals to get people to think they care about the common
man and other select groups, and it often is unrealistic and can be countered
strongly. It is “pandering to the crowd,” and liberals use it often to make
themselves come off as genuinely caring about the public- when in reality it
is merely intended to get more votes and support over to their side.
Tactic Number
Five: The Liberal Army
This tactic is one
that is employed almost everywhere you’ll go, almost in any debate you get
into, unless you control the environment of the debate. This tactic speaks
volumes about liberals and how truly wrong their philosophy is- yet it is a
tactic that is so effective because of sheer numbers.
The “Liberal Army”
tactic is simple: you’re in a debate, trying to make your point, and liberals
outnumber you and shut you down. They will often try to surround you and put
you in the center of the debate, so they can gun you from all angles. They
will combine all of the previously mentioned tactics (especially interruption,
raising the volume, and bomb-throwing), and since they have the numbers
advantage, you will be unable to respond or make any of your points. It is a
“pile on top of the ball carrier” tactic that has a 99% success rate, unless
the conservative is prepared.
Often, the
conservative is not, and they lose the debate out of being totally and
completely overwhelmed, as long as being shocked and dazed after being
attacked from so many sides.
Section 3: The Counterattack
As with any tactic,
there are counter-tactics. Conservatives can easily win debates with liberals,
but they must first know about the liberal tactics, which we have just went
over. Not only this, but they must know how to effectively respond to the
tactics. It is what occurs in response to liberal tactics that leads to
liberal victories in debates; it is NOT the liberal’s tactic in itself.
Liberal tactics are designed to get conservatives to make mistakes; therefore,
conservatives can, with a proper response, eliminate this possibility and take
away the liberal’s advantage.
Counterattack to
Interruption:
This one is simple,
and will really make the liberal come off as unprofessional, and immature. It
could even make the difference in who holds the upper ground in the debate,
and may shift an entire audience’s views regarding the people in the debate.
Essentially, you must
let the liberal finish their points (or lack thereof), and then respond. When
you respond, they will attempt to interrupt you often as we’ve already
mentioned; let this happen a few times (ask them to stop interrupting if you
want), and then when they do it again, step up and say “listen, if you’re
going to continue interrupting me and preventing these people [the audience]
from hearing both sides of the story, it is pointless to debate anything with
you.”
You can also throw in
something about how the liberal is preventing the audience from hearing facts,
figures, and numbers that the liberal is probably afraid of letting them know
about. Challenge them. Say “Are you afraid of my point? Are you afraid of the
truth?” They will respond with a “no,” to which you say “then let me finish,
and then you can have your chance.”
Do not be
particularly aggressive; do not throw around attacks, stay calm, cool, and
professional throughout. This will give you the upper hand over a liberal
every time- especially when there’s a good open-minded audience.
Counterattack to
Bomb-Throwing:
Bomb-throwing is
something that’s hard to deal with, as it tries to trick the audience AND you
at the same time; it tries to make the audience think of you in a negative
light, and it tries to get you angry and to throw you off. It may actually be
one of the hardest tactics to respond to, and liberals realize this. This is
why they use it.
The response,
however, is simple when you think about it. You must turn the bombs around, by
staying calm, collected, and cool. You must turn the bombs around, by
questioning why the liberal is throwing them in the first place. A relaxed
response is something liberals do not expect; when you respond in such a
professional manner, the bomb-throwing tactic is immediately nullified.
It is further
nullified when you ask why the liberal is throwing the bombs; even speak
directly to the audience and say “I question why my opponent here says these
things about me, when they have no proof, evidence, or fact to back up their
statements” and something to the sort of “I believe everyone should remain
professional and relaxed in a debate, and speak about the issues, instead of
attacking one another.”
The latter statement
is very effective with the audience, and actually turns the bomb-throwing
tactic around, flinging it right back at the liberal. The bomb-throwing tactic
is immature and unprofessional in the first place, and by responding to it in
the above described manner, the audience immediately realizes the liberal is
immature and unprofessional.
Counterattack to
Raising the Volume:
The entire reason for
liberals to use the raising volume tactic in the first place is to anger you
and engage you in a shouting match. Liberals are used to shouting, yelling,
and screaming, and responding in such a manner shifts the debate into one that
is on their terms; this leads them to victory. It makes you look like a
hothead who cannot handle pressure, and the audience starts to see you in a
negative light.
It also makes the
liberal look bad, but they try to counteract this by using the Populist Bomb,
combined with this tactic. Therefore, they make it seem like they’re yelling,
not because they’re immature, but because they’re “yelling for the people.” It
is a very effective trap.
The response? First of all, do not lose your cool. Do not yell back, do not raise your voice, and remain calm and collected. Let them scream and yell. Secondly, “defuse” their Populist Bombs (see next counterattack), remaining calm and collected the whole time.
The result will be
obvious: without the Populist Bomb to legitimize the liberal’s yelling and
screaming, the audience will start to see the liberal as unprofessional and
immature, and as a total hothead, similar to Howard Dean or Al Gore himself.
The tactic is thus nullified, but if the liberal continues to use it, it will
only make them look worse.
Counterattack to
the Populist Bomb:
The Populist Bomb,
while daunting at first (since it turns the audience effectively ‘against’
you), is easy to diffuse. First off, remain calm and cool, and do not get
overly defensive. Defensiveness signals weakness, and makes the audience think
that the liberal actually is right, which they are not.
The best response is
to take the Populist Bomb, and make your own modification to it. You’re going
to take the Populist Bomb and turn it into a Realistic Republican Populist
Bomb of your own. How can you do this? Simple. You take the strengths of the
liberal’s Populist Bomb, and you apply your realistic philosophy and knowledge
upon it. This can best be illustrated in an example:
***
Liberal Populist
Bomb: You Republicans do not care about Social Security, and you’re going to
destroy it, at the expense of every senior citizen in America. You want to
privatize it so that big business and the stock market can get more money,
while playing games with the American people’s tax dollars, tying it into the
market. You are messing with people’s retirements! We will not let you
Republicans destroy people’s retirements!!!
Liberal Populist Bomb
Finale: Quit robbing senior citizens and Americans of their social security
money! Stop messing with people’s futures for the sake of your own benefit! We
will not let you succeed!
Conservative
Response: Every American citizen should have the best possible opportunity for
a strong and stable retirement. The current Social Security system gives
senior citizens money for retirement, but I ask you all: can their retirement
funding be improved? The answer is a resounding yes: let people control their
own social security money in a private account, which the government can never
mess with; let people invest that money in the stock market if they CHOOSE to.
This gives people an opportunity which they never could have had before: an
opportunity to have much more money for retirement than what plain old basic
Social Security gives them! Current Social Security only yields a 2% return on
investment once a person retires; privatization could raise that amount
exponentially!
Conservative Response
Finale: It is your money, your retirement, and you should be able to do with
it what you please- and when you’re done with it, pass it on to your heirs-
something you cannot do under the current system!
***
Observe how you’re
taking the strength (the benefits for senior citizens and Americans) straight
out from the playbook of the liberal’s own Populist Bomb. You’re taking the
same emotional and idealistic plea out of their statement, and putting it in
your own. However, instead of going on the offensive and throwing around
attacks (something liberals will often do in these bombs – remember their use
of the “playing card deck”), you’re going to be positive. You’re going to
present a realistic, strong case. A perfect Realistic Republican Populist
Bomb. Heavy artillery!
Counterattack to
the Liberal Army:
The first thing you
probably ask to yourself when this comes up is “how am I supposed to outdebate
ten people at once?!?” That is a good question, and there really is no good
answer, unless you happen to be Ronald Reagan himself, who probably could have
outdebated the entire Democratic Party back in his time. But for us common
folk, there is a solution, albeit a simpler one:
Change the
environment.
What does that mean?
Well, you need to make sure you’re NOT outnumbered to begin with. When you
engage in a debate, set the terms that it is one-on-one early; this negates
the advantage of the “liberal army.” If liberals violate these rules, walk out
and refuse to debate with them until they comply to your one-on-one request.
If they refuse to, ask if you’re allowed to bring in more conservatives to
back you up. If they challenge your strength and resolve, challenge their
strength and resolve; after all, they already have the numbers advantage. If
they’re so right, why do they need it? Ask them that. Challenge them.
Liberals have large
egos and are provoked easily. When you challenge them and imply that they’re
being cowardly by not debating you one-on-one, they will likely respond by
accepting your challenge of a one-on-one. And if they don’t, well, they prove
your point that they are being cowardly. It is simple.
You can even try to
ask for a moderator to make sure your debate stays one-on-one, and that it
remains under control. Moderation negates many liberal tactics, and gives you
the edge, just like a one-on-one debate does.
Section 4: Conclusion, and Good Luck!
Taking all you’ve
learned in the above sections into account, you are now well-armed to
outdebate any liberal. You now understand their mindset, their tactics, and
how to counter those tactics. However, there are a few final universals that
you should remember, and they are listed below. Good luck in your debates, and
prove to the world how wrong liberals truly are!
- Do not get angry, ever
- Remain calm, cool, collected, and relaxed
- Be professional
- Use facts, figures, and statistics, but never excessively
- Use a decent amount of emotion- show people you really do care
- Be realistic- always imply that you’re the more realistic one, because you are
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario