The rules when debating a liberal are not complex. To be perfectly honest the words “debate” and “liberal” labor the syntax when trying to fit them into the same sentence.
To debate implies discussing two opposing views, each with some merit in order to arrive at some conclusion. Debates, such as the one between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton have no clear winner, the audience having decided what they believe beforehand, and are simply there to cheer their champion on.
There are no dramatic “knockouts,” with one man trying to prove the existence of God, and the other trying to prove a negative.
The best you could hope for is the rapier wit of Hitch embarrassing Sharpton, or for the faithful, vainly hoping the reverend would walk across a swimming pool, but the evening was far more entertaining than listening to some guy expound the flat earth theory.
Then there’s the definition of just what a liberal is. Back in my day liberals hung around San Francisco, played guitars, the girls were pretty, and well, were liberal, if you know what I mean.
They were for peace and love. They smoked a lot of dope, and about the deepest thing you’d hear come out of their mouth was, “Everything’s so green!” Today’s liberal has left that road, ran through a fence, and is racing through a cornfield straight for a cliff. In 1968 a liberal wanted peace, and be left alone.
They’d be happy to eat your food but preferred to live in the park. The newly improved liberal wants to steal your food, kill your dog, burn your house down, and steal your car. This transition occurred long about the time they took the flowers out of their hair and put on a mask.
Also, there’s the LBGTQ thing. If that “gender” is supposed to be all inclusive of the movement why are their marches invariably led by bulldykes? Security, I guess.
The political philosophy of the liberal now has become focused. Hate Trump! If Donald Trump were to give free ice cream to everyone in the country the liberals would complain that Republicans got a bigger bowl, and illegal immigrants should have been served first. THIS is what you’re debating!
You can get through the veneer of their logic right readily. You can always tell when you arrive at that point because they retreat to three-word slogans, born of an illogical premise, laced with personal insults and vulgarities. Since their reasoning is based on Hillary’s book, What Happened the debate has basically ended at that point, but the vernacular can drone on for hours because they haven’t quite given up the dope thing yet, that remnant of liberal days gone by.
You’ll want to discuss border security, they prefer to scream about some pigeon crap encrusted statue in the city park that’s still fighting the Civil War.
The entire purpose of the liberal debate plan is to wear you out or shout you down. Having a poorly developed frontal lobe makes logic and humor totally useless, and forget about metaphors, a word most liberals cannot spell.
The bottom line on rules and methods to be used when debating a liberal is DON’T! There’s nothing to see there, just move along. Remember back in school when you were taught the history of man? Well, there were these critters called Neanderthals. They grunted, farted, and clubbed their way across Europe for an impressive amount of time, but then some guys called Cro Magnon came along and before long the Neanderthals were reduced to fossils,
all but a smidge of DNA that survives in
They grunted, farted, and clubbed their way across Europe for an impressive amount of time, but then some guys called Cro Magnon came along and before long the Neanderthals were reduced to fossils, all but a smidge of DNA that survives in present-day liberals. As they knuckle-walk through life they simply refuse to see the Cro Magnon in the White House or the hoards of modern men and women who put him there, and all the screaming, cussing or grunting will not change that. How do you debate a liberal? Bring peanuts and cast them on the floor. That usually works.