Monday, September 23, 2013

Leftist Toddler Debating Tactics

There are half a dozen blogs that I visit every day, so I won't miss anything, and one of them is And I was gratified to go there the other day and find this:

  1. Skim until Offended
  2. Disqualify that Opinion
  3. Attack, Attack, Attack
  4. Disregard Inconvenient facts
  5. Make Shit Up
  6. Resort to Moral Equivalency
  7. Concern Trolling
  8. When all else fails, Racism!
Click HERE for his post, and his expansion and explanation of the list. But the list isn't original with Vox, as he says, and he directs us to Monster Hunter Nation, where he found it. And now I have a new blog to visit every day, because I've seldom read such a devastating treatment of lefties. It reminds me of our own loyal commenter, Eager Young Liberal, who, I believe, has this list memorized.  Go ahead, then, and read the full posts on both blogs. It will enlighten you and reinforce your cynicism.


  1. I will take them one at a time.

    1. I only ever respond to the parts I have read, I normally read your posts in their entirety. If I did not because I have found the beginnings so offensive that it is impossible to move forward, than I clearly state that. I see nothing wrong with that, how you begin is important. If you begin from the stance that being liberal is a mental illness, than there is no way to move forward with any debate. It is not about becoming a victim, it is about basic respect.

    2. Sometimes you are not qualified to speak on certain issues, and neither am I. Acknowledging that and beginning from the stance that you cannot fully understand what you have not lived is perfectly fine. As for the not knowing enough, when you quote someone who claims to be in expert in an academic field, they should have some sort of training. Same goes for Neil L. Smith, by running for president he is making the claim that he is fit to run a country, without any college education. He is entitled to have opinions but cannot expect anyone to take them seriously.

    3. When you bring up individual acts of violence to say there are race wars going on, and I say no, it has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with the length to which you stretch those facts. Also when "facts" are coming from nonexpert "experts" I can absolutely call their validity in question.

    4. Show me one instance of me making something up.

    5. This is a distortion. You posted the one thing about Obama's firsts, and I refuted some with yes someone has done them before. It is not a moral equivalency argument. It is a stating that yes this is wrong, but do not use it to prove a moral failing of liberals to hold up the other side, because they have done it as well. There is no way to move forward with an issue until you admit that all have done wrong.

    6. The author could not help themselves. They brought in the same tired argument that liberals are morally wrong because they always end up making concentration camps. I do care about people, that is why I am going to seminary. There is no money in it, so why would I go into it if not to use the message of Christ to bring about a better world?

    7. You've admitted to be a racist in one of your posts, so whenever I use that as an argument it is legit, because it is a preconceived bias that you have.

    1. 1. Always read in entirety even if you are offended. I wouldn't know jack about refuting atheism if I hadn't looked at athiest sites.

      2. How can you be certain you're qualified to dismiss someone's opinion?

      3. These "individual attacks" are happening in huge numbers. Either it's a race war or there is no such thing as war, only individual soldiers causing 'workplace violence'.

      4. That's not so much you but liberal ideology itself requires you to believe in made-up concepts (i.e transgenderism, etc.)

      5. Refer to number 4

      6. Did you just use a moral equivalency to refute the idea that liberals make moral equivalencies?

      7. The whole point he called himself a racist was to point out that the fact that being racist does not refute the arguments someone makes. Racism is not a bias but rather a calculated prediction. It's a bit like when people 'assumed' that babies came from man + woman.

  2. Also when "facts" are coming from nonexpert "experts" I can absolutely call their validity in question.

    I commend you for defending George Zimmerman from scurrilous attacks! Well done.