Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 108
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

  1. #1
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-14 @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,819
    Likes Received
    146 times
    Likes Given
    133

    How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    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 (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".

  2. #2
    Professor
    Penderyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK, Cymru mostly.
    Last Seen
    07-24-14 @ 07:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,485
    Likes Received
    264 times
    Likes Given
    127

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    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 (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.
    When I'm banned, it will be because I tell the truth about Zionism - and it looks as if the rascists are into knifing me at the moment.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    College Park, Maryland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,818
    Likes Received
    12111 times
    Likes Given
    13143

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    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 (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 by StillBallin75; 03-26-12 at 11:55 AM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    College Park, Maryland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,818
    Likes Received
    12111 times
    Likes Given
    13143

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    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 by StillBallin75; 03-26-12 at 11:59 AM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    College Park, Maryland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,818
    Likes Received
    12111 times
    Likes Given
    13143

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    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.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  6. #6
    I, we, serve.
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,209
    Likes Received
    3409 times
    Likes Given
    2310
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    I detect a bit of trol in this thread...
    You are surrounding all my surroundings,
    Sounding down the mountain range of my left-side brain,
    You are surrounding all my surroundings,
    Twisting the kaleidoscope behind both of my eyes.


  7. #7
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-14 @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,819
    Likes Received
    146 times
    Likes Given
    133

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    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?

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    College Park, Maryland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,818
    Likes Received
    12111 times
    Likes Given
    13143

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    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 by StillBallin75; 03-26-12 at 12:06 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  9. #9
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-14 @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,819
    Likes Received
    146 times
    Likes Given
    133

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    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?

  10. #10
    Global Moderator
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    College Park, Maryland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,818
    Likes Received
    12111 times
    Likes Given
    13143

    Re: How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    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.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •