|
|
Joe Mariani
Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
June 10, 2003
During the past year, I have spent countless
hours trying to have rational debates about the
various issues surrounding Iraq with Liberals on
various message boards all over the Web. I've
wondered over and over why they all seem to
follow certain patterns. I've been trying to
codify the rules that they seem to use, to
increase my ability to identify the tactics
they're using. When I identify which rule they're
following, they invariably reply with strings of
invective, proving that they know exactly
what they're doing. Following are the top five
Liberal "Rules" for Arguing that I've so far
identified, having been repeatedly subjected to
all these and more.
#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, 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,
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 was a Klansman,
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.
#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!
#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".
#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 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.
#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 Convention 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
supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver
Stone movies as possible. Remember that American
soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in
Platoon.
This is how I've watched Liberals argue every day
for the last year. The only thing that matters to
them is winning, by any means or tactics
necessary. Finding out the truth of the matter
doesn't seem to matter at all, does it?
------------
Email Joe Mariani: CavalierX@yahoo.com
Comment on this column in
the forum. ------------
|
|