• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There are two ways that you can try to defeat a liberal in a debate. The ineffective method (deontological / moral) and the effective method (consequentialist / economic).

1. Make an argument based on morality. For example...you can argue that taxes are theft. The bible says that theft is wrong therefore taxes are wrong. Or...if you don't believe in the bible...then you can say that there is a "natural law" that proves that taxes are wrong. In both cases you might as well take out a piece of paper and write on it..."taxes are wrong" and then hand it to your opponent.

Obviously this argument will only work on people that share your same moral views. And even more obviously...liberals do not share your same moral views. They believe that it is morally wrong not to contribute to the common good.

Therefore, your moral argument is to protect the rights of the bee and their moral argument is to protect the rights of the hive. However, if you make the argument that protecting the rights of the bee automatically protects the rights of the hive...then you are no longer making a moral argument. Instead, you're now making a consequentialist argument. You're arguing that the consequences of protecting the bee are good for the hive. But if you're going to end up making a consequentialist argument...then why bother starting with a moral argument?

2. Make an argument based on consequences (economics). For example...you can argue that only individuals can determine the "best" use of their limited resources. Our country as a whole would greatly benefit if individuals had the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

Here are a few examples of this argument in action...

  1. Noam Chomsky on Socialism
  2. Perspectives Matter - Backstory

As you can see...it's impossible for liberals to defeat this argument. If they attempt to defeat this argument...then their attempt (which represents the "best" use of their limited time) would automatically prove your point that people should have the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

Here's the bottom line. If you can't explain the economic benefits of freedom...then you can't complain when people fail to see the advantages of freedom. If they can't see the advantages of freedom then it's because you're failing to show it to them.

Admittedly, it's not easy to show people the "unseen"...which was exactly the objective of my post...Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson. Two heads are better than one though...so join the Magna Carta Movement and together we can help people see the "unseen".
 
There are two ways that you can try to defeat a liberal in a debate. The ineffective method (deontological / moral) and the effective method (consequentialist / economic).

1. Make an argument based on morality. For example...you can argue that taxes are theft. The bible says that theft is wrong therefore taxes are wrong. Or...if you don't believe in the bible...then you can say that there is a "natural law" that proves that taxes are wrong. In both cases you might as well take out a piece of paper and write on it..."taxes are wrong" and then hand it to your opponent.

Obviously this argument will only work on people that share your same moral views. And even more obviously...liberals do not share your same moral views. They believe that it is morally wrong not to contribute to the common good.

Therefore, your moral argument is to protect the rights of the bee and their moral argument is to protect the rights of the hive. However, if you make the argument that protecting the rights of the bee automatically protects the rights of the hive...then you are no longer making a moral argument. Instead, you're now making a consequentialist argument. You're arguing that the consequences of protecting the bee are good for the hive. But if you're going to end up making a consequentialist argument...then why bother starting with a moral argument?

2. Make an argument based on consequences (economics). For example...you can argue that only individuals can determine the "best" use of their limited resources. Our country as a whole would greatly benefit if individuals had the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

Here are a few examples of this argument in action...

  1. Noam Chomsky on Socialism
  2. Perspectives Matter - Backstory

As you can see...it's impossible for liberals to defeat this argument. If they attempt to defeat this argument...then their attempt (which represents the "best" use of their limited time) would automatically prove your point that people should have the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

Here's the bottom line. If you can't explain the economic benefits of freedom...then you can't complain when people fail to see the advantages of freedom. If they can't see the advantages of freedom then it's because you're failing to show it to them.

Admittedly, it's not easy to show people the "unseen"...which was exactly the objective of my post...Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson. Two heads are better than one though...so join the Magna Carta Movement and together we can help people see the "unseen".

Obviously no Republican could ever beat anyone in a debate. That is why they talk to themselves.
 
There are two ways that you can try to defeat a liberal in a debate. The ineffective method (deontological / moral) and the effective method (consequentialist / economic).

1. Make an argument based on morality. For example...you can argue that taxes are theft. The bible says that theft is wrong therefore taxes are wrong. Or...if you don't believe in the bible...then you can say that there is a "natural law" that proves that taxes are wrong. In both cases you might as well take out a piece of paper and write on it..."taxes are wrong" and then hand it to your opponent.

Obviously this argument will only work on people that share your same moral views. And even more obviously...liberals do not share your same moral views. They believe that it is morally wrong not to contribute to the common good.

Therefore, your moral argument is to protect the rights of the bee and their moral argument is to protect the rights of the hive. However, if you make the argument that protecting the rights of the bee automatically protects the rights of the hive...then you are no longer making a moral argument. Instead, you're now making a consequentialist argument. You're arguing that the consequences of protecting the bee are good for the hive. But if you're going to end up making a consequentialist argument...then why bother starting with a moral argument?

2. Make an argument based on consequences (economics). For example...you can argue that only individuals can determine the "best" use of their limited resources. Our country as a whole would greatly benefit if individuals had the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

Here are a few examples of this argument in action...

  1. Noam Chomsky on Socialism
  2. Perspectives Matter - Backstory

As you can see...it's impossible for liberals to defeat this argument. If they attempt to defeat this argument...then their attempt (which represents the "best" use of their limited time) would automatically prove your point that people should have the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

Here's the bottom line. If you can't explain the economic benefits of freedom...then you can't complain when people fail to see the advantages of freedom. If they can't see the advantages of freedom then it's because you're failing to show it to them.

Admittedly, it's not easy to show people the "unseen"...which was exactly the objective of my post...Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson. Two heads are better than one though...so join the Magna Carta Movement and together we can help people see the "unseen".

How the hell are either of these ways to "defeat" anyone in debate? Both of them are arguments with severe flaws. For the first, morals are subjective. And the existence of natural law or natural rights is a moralistic assumption, not objective fact.

Secondly, the second argument is also based upon an overly simplistic assumption. The idea that only individuals can determine the best use of their limited resources is, once again, a NORMATIVE assumption based on SUBJECTIVE values, rather than objective fact.

Bottom line, what you have listed here are specific argument based on problematic assumptions. Not actually ways to "defeat" anyone in any debate. Neither your moralistic nor your consequentialist argument are particularly effective without a hell of a lot more evidence to support them.
 
Last edited:
However, if you make the argument that protecting the rights of the bee automatically protects the rights of the hive...then you are no longer making a moral argument.

You could make such an argument, but to provide actual proof for it as an axiom is an entirely different matter. Besides, liberals aren't arguing that bees have should have no rights.
 
Last edited:
As you can see...it's impossible for liberals to defeat this argument. If they attempt to defeat this argument...then their attempt (which represents the "best" use of their limited time) would automatically prove your point that people should have the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

The one does not follow the other. Here is where your logic fails miserably.
 
I detect a bit of trol in this thread...
 
StillBallin75, my argument is that perspectives matter. If you're saying that my argument is wrong then you're saying that your perspective does not matter. So which is it? Am I right...or does your perspective not matter?
 
StillBallin75, my argument is that perspectives matter. If you're saying that my argument is wrong then you're saying that your perspective does not matter. So which is it? Am I right...or does your perspective not matter?

I am not saying your arguments are wrong, nor am I saying your perspective does not matter. Perspectives do indeed matter.

I am saying your characterization of your consequentialist argument as logically unassailable is simply incorrect, and that it is nowhere close to being a surefire way to defeat anyone in debate.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying your arguments are wrong, nor am I saying your perspective does not matter. Perspectives do indeed matter.

I am saying your characterization of your consequentialist argument as logically unassailable is simply incorrect.

Errr...I'm confused. My consequentialist argument is that perspectives matter. You agree that perspectives matter...but you disagree that my consequentialist argument is unassailable. But in order to defeat my consequentialist argument you have to prove that perspectives do not matter. Can you do that?
 
Errr...I'm confused. My consequentialist argument is that perspectives matter. You agree that perspectives matter...but you disagree that my consequentialist argument is unassailable. But in order to defeat my consequentialist argument you have to prove that perspectives do not matter. Can you do that?

Where exactly in your consequentialist argument do you argue that perspectives matter? I'm confused.

Once again, this is the problem I have with your reasoning when it comes to your consequentialist argument:

As you can see...it's impossible for liberals to defeat this argument. If they attempt to defeat this argument...then their attempt (which represents the "best" use of their limited time) would automatically prove your point that people should have the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

This is precisely where your logic breaks down.
 
You are assuming that the individual knows best what to do with their money. IS that why McDonalds is so great at feeding us, because McDonalds has shown to be so good for us and society?

Individuals do not make choices that benefit society, they make choices that benefit themselves for the moment.
 
Where exactly in your consequentialist argument do you argue that perspectives matter? I'm confused.

Once again, this is the problem I have with your reasoning when it comes to your consequentialist argument:

This is precisely where your logic breaks down.

You can't just say that something breaks down. You have to demonstrate exactly how and why it breaks down.

Perspectives ONLY matter if people can choose how they use their limited time and money. If you can't choose how you use your limited time/money then clearly your perspective does not matter. So which is it? Does your perspective matter or not? That you are continuing to use your limited time to discuss this issue with me clearly proves my point that perspectives DO matter. Therefore, people should be able to choose how they use their limited time/money.
 
You can't just say that something breaks down. You have to demonstrate exactly how and why it breaks down.

The fact that I choose to engage in debate is not prima facie proof that I know how to make the best use of my time all the time. In fact, my time is probably better used doing homework or hanging out with friends at this very moment, but I am debating on DP because I have compulsive DP-itis

Perspectives ONLY matter if people can choose how they use their limited time and money. If you can't choose how you use your limited time/money then clearly your perspective does not matter. So which is it? Does your perspective matter or not? That you are continuing to use your limited time to discuss this issue with me clearly proves my point that perspectives DO matter. Therefore, people should be able to choose how they use their limited time/money.

I read your blog post, and I really fail to see what perspectives (which i view as a synonym for personal opinions and values) has to do with unlimited individual economic freedom.
 
1. Make an argument based on morality. For example...you can argue that taxes are theft. The bible says that theft is wrong therefore taxes are wrong. Or...if you don't believe in the bible...then you can say that there is a "natural law" that proves that taxes are wrong. In both cases you might as well take out a piece of paper and write on it..."taxes are wrong" and then hand it to your opponent.

Obviously this argument will only work on people that share your same moral views. And even more obviously...liberals do not share your same moral views. They believe that it is morally wrong not to contribute to the common good.

I'm amazed you're trying to "instruct" people on how to defeat people in Debate yet you missed a GLARING hole in your logicla reasoning here.

You state that unless the liberal doesn't have a moral code that says that stealing is unjust that you're undoubtably win. However, the moral code is not the big question mark here. Someone could agree 100% with you that theft is immoral and shouldn't be allowed. However, they could disagree with you on what you're arguing...that taxes = theft.

Theft implies the illegal taking of ones money. By being a citizen of the United States you're entering into the social contract that creates our government, one that establishes that the government has the ability to tax its citizens. This inherently makes taxes not "theft" as they are not illegal, but rather something you've agreed to through your agreement to function within the government of the united states and the social contract it forms.

Your entire premise of how easy it is to "defeat" a liberal using such strategy assumes, rather boldly and with nothing to support why one assume such a thing, that the premise of "taxes = theft" would be accepted and is unquestionably legitimate. It is not.
 
You are assuming that the individual knows best what to do with their money. IS that why McDonalds is so great at feeding us, because McDonalds has shown to be so good for us and society?

Individuals do not make choices that benefit society, they make choices that benefit themselves for the moment.

No, I'm saying that the concept of "BEST" only has meaning in terms of our perspectives. From my perspective the "BEST" use of your time would be to read my entire blog...pragmatarianism. Is this truly the "BEST" use of your time? Can anybody else answer that question "BETTER" than you can?

Resources are inefficiently allocated when we impose our perspectives onto other people. If you don't believe me then spend your time reading my entire blog. There's no chance that you're going to do that because you have "BETTER" things that you can be doing with your time. But only you can know that.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of taxes...I'm just saying that there is a significant problem with 538 congresspeople imposing their perspectives onto 150 million taxpayers. This substantial misallocation of resources is exactly what causes recessions and depressions.

Perspectives obviously matter. Therefore...we all stand to benefit by allowing 150 million taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.
 
I'm amazed you're trying to "instruct" people on how to defeat people in Debate yet you missed a GLARING hole in your logicla reasoning here.

You state that unless the liberal doesn't have a moral code that says that stealing is unjust that you're undoubtably win. However, the moral code is not the big question mark here. Someone could agree 100% with you that theft is immoral and shouldn't be allowed. However, they could disagree with you on what you're arguing...that taxes = theft.

Theft implies the illegal taking of ones money. By being a citizen of the United States you're entering into the social contract that creates our government, one that establishes that the government has the ability to tax its citizens. This inherently makes taxes not "theft" as they are not illegal, but rather something you've agreed to through your agreement to function within the government of the united states and the social contract it forms.

Your entire premise of how easy it is to "defeat" a liberal using such strategy assumes, rather boldly and with nothing to support why one assume such a thing, that the premise of "taxes = theft" would be accepted and is unquestionably legitimate. It is not.

I really love how Xero provides TWO ways to defeat a liberal in debate, and then explicitly states that the first way is ineffective. Dunno what's up with that. If it's ineffective, then perhaps it doesn't defeat anyone. :doh
 
Last edited:
The fact that I choose to engage in debate is not prima facie proof that I know how to make the best use of my time all the time. In fact, my time is probably better used doing homework or hanging out with friends at this very moment, but I am debating on DP because I have compulsive DP-itis

I read your blog post, and I really fail to see what perspectives (which i view as a synonym for personal opinions and values) has to do with unlimited individual economic freedom.

Actions speak louder than words. The "best" use of your time is entirely dependent on the choices you make. Are you going to make mistakes? Of course...everybody makes mistakes...which is exactly why we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket.

I'm not arguing against taxes...I'm merely arguing that your perspective...your ideas, interests, values, desires, wants, needs, priorities, concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, goals, experiences, preferences, and partial knowledge...matters. Given that all that matters...taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. The perspectives of 150 million taxpayers should determine the distribution of public funds...not the other way around.

In other words...the perspectives of 538 congresspeople do not matter more than the perspectives of 150 million taxpayers. That's not how economics...the study of scarcity...works. That's exactly how and why economic failures occur.
 
Actions speak louder than words. The "best" use of your time is entirely dependent on the choices you make. Are you going to make mistakes? Of course...everybody makes mistakes...which is exactly why we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket.

I'm not arguing against taxes...I'm merely arguing that your perspective...your ideas, interests, values, desires, wants, needs, priorities, concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, goals, experiences, preferences, and partial knowledge...matters. Given that all that matters...taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. The perspectives of 150 million taxpayers should determine the distribution of public funds...not the other way around.

In other words...the perspectives of 538 congresspeople do not matter more than the perspectives of 150 million taxpayers. That's not how economics...the study of scarcity...works. That's exactly how and why economic failures occur.

I don't know if you've been informed already of this, but the value of public goods provided by the government (economic, social, and otherwise) is not as easily measurable as that of private goods which are subject to normal supply and demand factors. That has always been the problem with your pragmatarianism idea.

If your theory held any water, we should simply privatize all of governments functions, including the building of lighthouses, infrastructure, defense, schools, etc. Public goods are public goods PRECISELY because their value is not easily measurable, including by the average taxpayer.
 
I really love how Xero provides TWO ways to defeat a liberal in debate, and then explicitly states that the first way is ineffective. Dunno what's up with that. If it's ineffective, then perhaps it doesn't defeat anyone. :doh

Clearly this is a tutorial on how to defeat liberals in a debate. The first part of the tutorial involves pointing out the obvious flaws with the most frequently used approach...the moral "taxes are theft" argument.
 
Perspectives obviously matter. Therefore...we all stand to benefit by allowing 150 million taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

Then we will have 150,000,000 organization created by the government, and I see no benefit to that.
 
I don't know if you've been informed already of this, but the value of public goods provided by the government (economic, social, and otherwise) is not as easily measurable as that of private goods which are subject to normal supply and demand factors. That has always been the problem with your pragmatarianism idea.

If your theory held any water, we should simply privatize all of governments functions, including the building of lighthouses, infrastructure, defense, schools, etc. Public goods are public goods PRECISELY because their value is not easily measurable, including by the average taxpayer.

Is there a demand for public goods? Yes. Is there a supply of public goods? Yes...obviously there are already government organizations. Therefore...in order to determine the optimal level of funding for government organizations...we would merely need to allow taxpayers to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to. Their choices would reflect their perspectives and YOU have already agreed that perspectives matter.
 
Is there a demand for public goods? Yes. Is there a supply of public goods? Yes...obviously there are already government organizations. Therefore...in order to determine the optimal level of funding for government organizations...we would merely need to allow taxpayers to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to. Their choices would reflect their perspectives and YOU have already agreed that perspectives matter.

Their perspectives are already represented though the electoral process.
 
Then we will have 150,000,000 organization created by the government, and I see no benefit to that.
If you don't see any benefit in that...then why do you think that I...or any other sane person...aka taxpayers...would see any benefit in that?
 
Their perspectives are already represented though the electoral process.

I guess I'll just quote my post...Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson...

What is the total amount of information contained within the perspectives of 150 million taxpayers? Does congress even know your name…let alone your ideas, interests, values, desires, wants, needs, priorities, concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, goals, experiences, preferences, and partial knowledge? All that information is not conveyed by voting. It can only be conveyed by allowing you to choose which government organizations you give your limited resources to.
 
I guess I'll just quote my post...Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson...

What is the total amount of information contained within the perspectives of 150 million taxpayers? Does congress even know your name…let alone your ideas, interests, values, desires, wants, needs, priorities, concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, goals, experiences, preferences, and partial knowledge? All that information is not conveyed by voting. It can only be conveyed by allowing you to choose which government organizations you give your limited resources to.

Here's the deal. Your entire "pragmatarianism" doctrine rests on the faulty premise that the taxpayers are in the best position to assess the needs of the folks providing the public goods and services.

Take, for example, our military and defense establishment. A soldier or Marine fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan is ideally well-equipped, well-fed, and supplied with the proper ammunition. The average taxpayer, sitting thousands of miles away, is not in a proper position to properly assess the needs of that individual trooper. For him to be effective at his job, he needs good body armor. He needs a functioning and reliable weapon. He needs quality ammunition. In other words, a bureaucracy like the DoD requires a dedicated source of funding and should not be subject to the whims of donation drives by private citizens, because this would likely result in unsteady funding and inferior equipment. The average taxpayer is not capable of properly assessing the logistical needs of the troops who are attempting to carry out their mission because they are not privy to perfect information or education regarding strategic and tactical circumstances.

Moreover, your entire idea of taxpayers allocating their taxes online is subject to the dynamics of free-ridership.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom