Posted by
Lady Logician on Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:18:30 AM
While I can not take credit for the sentiments below and it was not sourced when it came to me, I can definately echo the sentiments. Just go to the comments section of any conservative leaning blog and you will see the following:
#1: Attack Your Opponent - If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, insult his career, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Neo-Con, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd's history, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him. I have also seen the k for c replacement used to imply fascism in conservatives.
#2: Switch Your Arguments - If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to "of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam". Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn't exist -- the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory!
There have been wonderful examples of this over at Shot in the Dark, especially in the comments about the blogswarm of the Patricians who signed the "Happy to pay more" ad. After the initial comments like "nothing like going tinto a project with a predetermined result" and "happy to see you wingnuts spinning your wheels" and it became obvious that the research was showing exactly what we expected, the comments changed to "well of course they are Democrats - they never claimed to be anything else!"
#3: Raise The Bar - When your opponent presents you with proof of anything -- UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc -- state that it's not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called "proof" doesn't mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn't count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof... and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry -- and then you know you've got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was "laughable". And if you do provide multiple sources for your data, you can be sure that it will be dismissed as "scattered", "inconclusive", "incomplete"...the list goes on. No matter how much proof you provide it is never enough!
#4: Attack The Source - When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there's only one way to beat him -- attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent's facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect. Put down FOX news channel (FAUX news)and anyone that refers to it -- ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing. If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument -- you know that "left wing" and "correct" are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist's web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point. There is a gentleman in the building I work in that has this down to an art form. Shortly after the Popular Mechanics issue came out debunking all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, he sent someone in my office a link to a website that said the PM issue was part of the conspiracy. No proof to that - just the claims. Then when the video showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon was released and was aired of Fox News, his response was a) it's Faux News - they are biased and b) all TV news sources are tools of the government!
#5: Blame America First/Moral Equivalency It's very important, at all times, to remember that America is the REAL bad guy here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam's humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America's own "atrocities". Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam's 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law. Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Conventions did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries. Never give credence to your opponent's arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc... it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond the supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in the movie Platoon and there is always a conspricy surounding anything that happens on our soil that points back to the goverment.
The funny thing is, if you confront the liberals on thiese tactics, they will deny it which is not unexpected. They expect conservatives to admit their prejudices, but liberals refuse to admit theirs.
Now you are forwarned. If you know what to expect, when debating liberals, you can be more prepared to counter their tactics. Good luck and good debating!