Posted on 08/08/2019 12:02:00 PM PDT by 1pitech
The culture of America is changed in part by the conversations passed from citizen to citizen. For conservatives, it not a lack of values that hurt them in debates with liberals. It is a lack of skill of knowing how to word their thoughts and understand the different debate tactics that liberals approach them with. This audiobook debate guide is for conservatives and will arm you with debate skills you can use anywhere. It's FREE, no strings attached. Just email ibbetson91.9@gmail.com and write "debate guide" in the subject line and we will send you a FREE code to get it.
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
You cannot win with liberals because they are fundamentally dishonest. They lie to themselves, so why would they have a problem lying to you? To a liberal, it all comes down to feelings, and you can’t change the feelings of a closed minded person.
Exactly right.
AND refuse to allow logic to persuade them.
Beat Liberals. Leave it at that.
We debate and argue the ideas, their debate is essentially about recruiting to kill their interlocutor.
Essentially liberals always lose easily the debate, but they are not into debate ofideas. They are into bringing a gun to the table
Thomas Jefferson
You are correct. Leftists see the Truth as whatever their feelings dictate it to be. Logic and reason do not play a part.
It doesn’t matter if you can beat liberals in an argument.
It’s not about reason or arguments, it’s about POWER. Nothing else.
You can win arguments all day long, but if at the end of the day, they can doxx you, get you fired, and take your guns and kids away, they have won.
THAT’S what conservatives better start dealing with and stop playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules.
It’s hard to have a discussion with a person who is wholly un informed and has no logic in their thinking.
It’s like trying to kill an ant with a bowling ball.
It’s hard to have a discussion with a person who is wholly un informed and has no logic in their thinking.
“For conservatives, it not a lack of values that hurt them in debates with liberals. It is a lack of skill of knowing how to word their thoughts and understand the different debate tactics that liberals approach them with.”
complete bullshit ... facts and logic bounce off of leftists like ducks shedding water ... it’s pointless and a complete waste of time and energy to attempt engage a leftist in a rational discussion involving facts and logic because it’s simply not possible ...
Stalinists lie. Always
Calmly present irrefutable facts and immediately the liberal calls you a racist and will not “debate” anything further.
I’ve given up trying to convert anyone. Not worth my time to deal with their mental illness.
Same here. The last time I got into a confrontation with a stupid liberal was before Christmas with my Filipino bud who invited me to his new production company in Hollywood..
It ALWAYS starts with an idiot who talks loudly about Trump being all bad etc. and RACIST.
Pissed off, he shoots back “you stupid white liberals always bitch about white privilege when you are the CLEAR MINORITY according to the last census. And you whites always go with each other here in L.A., live in white neighborhoods and dont even have non=white friends in your circle. So STFU about your stupid white liberal crap OK?”
I didnt even say a word :)
Political correctness is journalists being entitled not only to their own opinions, but to their own facts. Journalists define the political term “liberal” to mean exactly what journalists think. Therefore Democrat politicians, liberal to a man and woman, are entitled by PC to their own facts.But what establishes political correctness? It is the fact that in 1964 the Warren Court enthusiastically deconstructed the right of politicians to sue for libel. But since Democrats vigorously go along and get along with journalists, Democrats don’t get libeled. And Republicans do.
Did the First Amendment abolish the right to sue for libel? The New York Times v. Sullivan decision suggests that - but the First Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights, was crafted to not change the rights of the people or the states. ”The freedom of the press” existed before the Bill of Rights - and it did not prevent suits for libel. The Sullivan decision claimed to be enforcing 1A - but abolishing the right to compensation for libel isn’t in 1A.
So there’s that. There is also the fact that the wire services created a journalism cartel. Simply by creating continual virtual meetings among journalists, it made Adam Smith’s dictum applicable to the “trade” of journalism: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Antitrust action should lie against the AP and its membership as well as all other wire services. Wire services are obsolete in the Internet era, and therefore are no longer “too big to fail.”
One “conspiracy against the public” resulting from the wire services is the claim - the fatuous claim - that “journalists are objective.” That claim:
Republican politicians must sue for libel whenever they can prove the cartel to be factually (not as a matter of opinion but of fact) wrong. And SCOTUS must allow the suits to proceed to a judgement.
- cannot be true (since objectivity is a goal, not a state of being),
- motivates group-think and ideological conformity within journalism, and
- proves that journalists - who know that journalism is systematically negative - are cynics. For only a cynic could claim that “negativity is objectivity.”
Doubt my opinions? I don’t think so. 8>)
That includes atheism (anti-theism) and evolution. They are militantly believed for their presuppositions and implications more than for their supposed intrinsic merits. They are not dispassionately-reasoned positions.
Those on the right who are intellectually honest acknowledge the element of faith; those on the left do not. They lie - to themselves and to others.
My first undergraduate biology teacher (for science majors, of which I was one) had a favorite saying: “Given time and chance, we are confident that...” [evolution, et cetera, et al, would be validated]. Those are the words of faith, not the words of science. He used it whenever anything that appeared to contradict his pre-determined position was discussed.
In this regard, having seen plenty of your posts, I regard you as an intellectually dishonest leftist in this specific regard, regardless of your other socio-political positions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.