Liberals, their tactics, and how to defeat them in argument.

How to Defeat a Liberal

Many years ago, while growing up in a household infested with the 60s mentality of If it feels good do it, I would have professed myself as a Democratic Party Liberal. The culture and the times in which I was raised dictated such. However, as I grew older and began thinking outside of the ranting and raving hyperbole of the liberal mindset, I came to the realization that behind the mindless drivel lay no real plans or strategy for making life better for everyone. Sure, there were many cool ideas bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball during a match, but nothing ever of any real substance.

Much like the lyrics of a popular Beatles song at that time:

You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan Revolution, The Beatles

Liberals never think past of how to fix society, or make it better, once they have it broken. They have no plan in place, other than taking as much money as they can from those who have it and spend a small portion of it on those who do not. Obviously, the long-term viability of such a plan depends on the ability to rob Peter to pay Paul. Eventually, Peter grows tired of getting robbed while Paul becomes more and more dependent upon Peter.

In America today we see how the Peter/Paul scenario has played out disastrously, due to most wealthy Americans having moved themselves and their money overseas. With the transfer of Americas wealth overseas, there comes a time when there is simply not enough of other peoples money to go around. The fact that America is now over 18 TRILLION dollars in debt and counting at the time of this writing is proof positive to this effect.

After many years of research and being honest with myself, I come to realize that my liberal thinking just did not jive with the way the real world of everyday life worked. As liberals, we had to balance our checkbooks, not spend more than we were bringing in, everyone played a part in the household to make life run efficiently, and so forth and so on. Every minute detail of daily life contradicted what we professed to believe as liberals. Eventually, there came a time where I could no longer rectify or justify the hypocrisies. Thus, I changed my religion - so to speak...

The reason for this writing is to help those struggling with liberalism to see the same hypocrisies that I did and come to terms with them. It is also for those of conservative thought, like me, to engage liberals in constructive debate - if possible. Not because conservatives are, right (which I believe that they are) and liberals are wrong, but because liberals have their argument down to a science. Included in their arguments are the emotional tactics that they use in debates. This is where most of those who ascribe to conservative thought fall flat: overcoming liberal emotional tactics.

Use the following tips as your guide to defeat liberal argument.

Warmly,

Garlin James

How Most Liberals Think

In order to debate liberals we must first understand how they think: why they believe in their

particular stances, their thought processes, and their worldview. We can sum this up rather easily by

looking at the most common types of people who consider themselves liberals. Although there are

many exceptions within each of these groups - not using too broad of a paintbrush - we must look

at two key groups:

Intellectuals

College Students, especially those in Ivy Leagues

College Professors, especially those in Ivy Leagues

Other teachers, education administrators, and education policymakers

Journalists and Media personalities

Victims of the Democratic Party

African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities

Senior Citizens

The poor and middle class, especially those who live in urban areas

Feminists

Environmentalists

Obviously, there are undoubtedly other groups that could be considered key players in the

Democratic/liberal movement, but the above are the most often cases you will run into. There are

distinct reasons for why the aforementioned two groups exist; and these reasons must be

understood if you are to properly engage a liberal in a debate. For, once again, we must understand

their mindsets.

The Intellectuals:

The Intellectuals are an interesting group of people. They are typically your academics, people

who have very strong academic accomplishments, or believe that they do (these can be

interchanged). They often think of themselves as smart people, and associate with like-minded

smart people. You find them especially in Ivy League colleges, though this phenomenon easily

exists in non-Ivy League schools as well. It extends beyond just the college and university scene,

however; other education institutions have similar groups, and the media is full of such people.

Intellectuals are usually responsible and intelligent people who are going in a good direction in life -

at least academically. However, all of them fall victim to one trap: they believe that everyone else

is just as responsible and intelligent as they are.

Thus, they fall into an ideological worldview, which believes that everything can be perfect, and that

cases of human nature such as greed simply do not exist. This explains why far left leaning liberals

support communism - they thought people would be happy with to each according to their

needclearly, that did not work.

The vast majorities of liberals believe that things like abortion should be legal, because people will be

responsible with it, and not take advantage of it. They also believe that drugs should be legalized for

the same reasons. Most liberals believe that children should be exposed to sex and violence

(including things that can be seen as the promotion of them), because children would be responsible

with such matters.

Liberals do not think things on television and mass media should be regulated, thinking that all

people are responsible enough to handle indecent material. They believe all criminals can be

rehabilitated and become responsible like them, and thus they oppose things like the death

penalty. The list goes on and on, but the key thing you must know about liberals: they are frequently

not in touch with reality itself- they are like bookworms. They do not realize the problems in the

world for what they really are, but they believe that they do.

Therefore, they fall victim to an ideological worldview, which simply does not work in reality:

liberalism.

Everything these intellectuals do now was done before, in essence: Karl Marx once presented an

ideological leftist worldview. It did not work, but it sure sounded great when he presented his

ideology. What looks good on paper may not look good in reality - that is one thing the intellectual

left does not understand.

These people also fundamentally believe they are right, and will refuse to argue with anyone who

they think is of less merit than they are; theyre very elitist to a sense, and therefore blindly hold to

their ideology despite any arguments thrown at them. This is typical Ivy League arrogance and

journalistic elitism at its finest.

Victims of the Democratic Party

This group makes up the core of the voting element as far as the Democratic Party goes, and thus

helps the most to promote the liberal cause. These people think they have been wronged or

disadvantaged, or have been told that they have been wronged or disadvantaged. They believe that

opposing parties (Republicans, Tea Party, conservatives, etc.) are out to wrong them and

disadvantage them even further.

These are the things commonly referred to as playing the race/age/gender/class card. These are

liberal favorites, so be ready to hear their use often. It works, it is effective, and this second group of

people- the victims- falls for it very easily. As a result, they become slaves of the liberal mindset.

Look no further than how the Democrats try to scare African Americans into believing that

Republicans are holding them down, how the Democrats try to scare, middle class Americans into

thinking Republicans are hurting the middle class, and how the Democrats try to scare women

into thinking Republicans are against their rights. Democrats also frequently try to scare Senior

Citizens into thinking Republicans want to destroy Social Security. Look at the key words

mentioned in these accusations: against, holding down, hurting, and destroying.

In essence, it is fear mongering targeted at certain groups of people in society, and it works.

Democrats and liberals attempt to spin the issues into backing up this fear mongering, and people

listen to it. As a result, this entire second group is formed- the victims of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, most people do not know much about the issues; especially as far as fact and reality

goes. What they do think they know, however, is that Republicans and conservatives are completely

against them and trying to hold them down (or their issue) in general. They believe the way they do,

because of the total spin and fear mongering they hear from Democratic and liberal leaders. They

then go out and vote for these said Democrats and become strong liberals, mostly out of fear and

loathing of the other side - values instilled into them. Furthermore, they become very likely to start

calling conservatives bigots, racists and homophobes, because of the lies that the liberal left

has drilled into their heads.

Key Liberal Characteristics

Based on the previous two groups, you have one group of people that is ideological, unrealistic, and

elitist. Then you have a second group that is fearful, angry, resentful, and therefore has a closed

mind towards reality - or any other persons opinions if they differ from their own.

Liberals and their Tactics

Now that we understand the two key elements of liberalism, we can now move on to debates

themselves. In debates, liberals tend to use a select few tactics very frequently; no matter whom

the person is, if they are a liberal, they always make use of the same arsenal. This is likely due to the

fact that theyre all promoting the same unrealistic philosophy, liberalism itself, and that liberalism

can only be argued effectively in one manner: through the use of these tactics.

Once we have looked at the liberal weapons themselves, the reasoning will be obvious. Here they

are, in no particular order:

Tactic Number One: Interruption

Liberals use this tactic throughout the span of an entire debate. If you, as a conservative (or even

moderate), are attempting to make a point- especially if you have numbers, facts, and figures to back

your point of view- the common liberal will use this weapon often. Why is this? Because it stops you

from getting your point across- and if you do not get your point across, you cannot win a debate.

The liberal sees this, the liberal knows this, and thus the liberal will interrupt you often. If the liberal

has no numbers, facts, or figures to prove their point with (a common occurrence), the liberal will

use the interruption tactic even more. The interruption tactic is often used in combination with

another rather strong tactic, bomb throwing, which we cover next.

Tactic Number Two: Bomb-Throwing

This one is not used as much, as it tends to get offensive, but when it is used, it can lead a liberal to

victory in a debate through nothing more than sheer shock-value. It is called bomb-throwing, and

essentially it is the use of name calling, accusations, and vicious attacks to shut down the opposition.

These attacks are usually not even true, but this does not matter- for the attacks are only designed to

do three things:

1. Shock the audience and perhaps paint you out to be evil and wrong

2. Coerce you to change the subject by trying to defend yourself from these attacks (a natural

human impulse on your part)

3. Anger you and force you to lose your cool, and thus appear immature and unprofessional

Repeatedly, liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are simply not ready for

it. Conservatives are also generally classier, relaxed, and well mannered than their liberal

counterparts, so they often do not know how to respond to such viciousness. This trend it starting

to change as conservatives have rebuilt their defenses, but many still fall for this liberal trap of

bomb-throwing.

Tactic Number Three: Raising the Volume

This is yet another tactic geared towards conservatives in particular, and preys off the fact that

conservatives are generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered people than liberals are. This

one makes use of another fact: conservatives are quieter people than liberals are, and not anywhere

near as fierce. Liberals realize this, and they use it to their advantage when it comes to debate.

Essentially, they raise the volume. They will yell, scream, talk aggressively, and be particularly fierce

and provoking throughout the debate. They do this to anger their opposition and try to throw them

off, and they do it to try to weaken the conservatives resolve. They also want to engage the

opposition in a shouting match, as this plays to a liberals favor, since they already do it (and since

it makes the audience think of the opposition badly). Additionally, this tactic serves another purpose:

it motivates other liberals and gets them pumped up, to the point where they might even get

involved in the debate (see tactic five).

Tactic Number Four: The Populist Bomb

This one is a tactic seems to have been developed by one group of liberals to promote the growth of

another; essentially, the intellectual left employs the Populist Bomb often to get people to join the

droves of the Victims of the Democratic Party group. Most often, these said people do not realize

that they are being dragged into such a group; but the liberals know it, as they are trying to get more

people on their side.

So what is a Populist Bomb? It is something known as telling people what they want to hear. It

employs frequent use of the race card, the class card, and all sorts of other things that we covered

earlier- the same very things that created the second group of liberals, the Victims of the

Democratic Playing Card Deck. It frequently attacks Republicans and any other opposition for the

screwing over of certain groups (even though these attacks are usually false), and it makes

excessive use of spin.

By spin, I mean the Populist Bomb will present some sort of god-like plan to give people some

benefits, such as health insurance, while also saying things about how taxes wont be raised. While

these two things contradict each other when one looks into the finances behind such proposals,

common people dont know this, and therefore theyll believe both statements, and will applaud the

liberal who presents them- the Populist Bomb at its finest.

The Populist Bomb is a tactic used by liberals to get people to think they care about the common

man and other select groups, and it often is unrealistic and can be countered strongly. It is

pandering to the crowd, and liberals use it often to make themselves come off as genuinely caring

about the public- when in reality, it is intended to get more votes and support over to their side.

Tactic Number Five: The Liberal Army

This tactic is one that is employed almost everywhere you will go, almost in any debate you get into,

unless you control the environment of the debate. This tactic speaks volumes about liberals and

their philosophy; it is an effective tactic because of sheer numbers.

The Liberal Army tactic is simple: you are in a debate, trying to make your point, and liberals

outnumber you and shut you down. They will often try to surround you and put you in the center of

the debate, so they can gun you from all angles. They will combine all of the previously mentioned

tactics (especially interruption, raising the volume, and bomb throwing), and since they have the

numbers advantage, you will be unable to respond or make any of your points. A pile on top of the

ball carrier tactic has a 99% success rate, unless the conservative is prepared.

Unfortunately, all too often, the conservative is not prepared and they lose the debate out of being

completely overwhelmed - as well as being shocked and dazed after attacked from so many sides.

The Counterattack

As with any tactic, there are counter-tactics. Conservatives can easily win debates with liberals, but

they must first know about the liberal tactics, which we have just gone over. Not only this, but they

must know how to effectively respond to the tactics. What occurs in response to liberal tactics is what

leads to liberal victories in debates - it is NOT the liberals tactic in itself. Liberal tactics are designed

to get conservatives to make mistakes; therefore, conservatives can, with a proper response,

eliminate this possibility and take away the liberals advantage.

Counterattack to Interruption:

This one is simple, making the liberal come off as unprofessional and immature. It could even make

the difference in who holds the upper ground in the debate, and may shift an entire audiences views

regarding the people in the debate.

Essentially, you must let the liberal finish their points (or lack thereof), and then respond. When you

respond, they will attempt to interrupt you often as we have already mentioned. Let this happen a

few times (ask them to stop interrupting if you want), and then when they do it again, step up and

say listen, if you are going to continue interrupting me and preventing these people [the audience]

from hearing both sides of the story, it is pointless to debate anything with you.

You can also throw in something about how the liberal is preventing the audience from hearing

facts, figures, and numbers that the liberal is probably afraid of letting them know about. Challenge

them. Say, Are you afraid of my point? Are you afraid of the truth? They will respond with a no,

to which you say then let me finish, and then you can have your chance.

Do not be particularly aggressive; do not throw around attacks, stay calm, cool, and professional

throughout. This will give you the upper hand over a liberal every time- especially when there is a

good open-minded audience.

Counterattack to Bomb-Throwing

Bomb throwing is something that is hard to deal with, as it tries to trick the audience and you at the

same time. Bomb throwing tries to make the audience think of you in a negative light, and it tries to

get you angry and to throw you off. It may actually be one of the hardest tactics to respond to, and

liberals realize this. This is why they use it so much.

The response, however, is simple when you think about it. You must turn the bombs around, by

staying calm, collected, and cool. You must turn the bombs around, by questioning why the liberal is

throwing them in the first place. A relaxed response is something liberals do not expect; when you

respond in such a professional manner, the bomb-throwing tactic is immediately nullified.

Bomb throwing is further nullified when you ask why the liberal is throwing the bombs; even speak

directly to the audience and say, I question why my opponent here says these things about me

when they have no proof, evidence, or fact to back up their statements. On the other hand, say

something to the sort of I believe everyone should remain professional and relaxed in a debate, and

speak about the issues, instead of attacking one another.

The latter statement is very effective with the audience, and actually turns the bomb-throwing tactic

around, flinging it right back at the liberal. The bomb-throwing tactic is immature and

unprofessional in the first place, and by responding to it in the above-described manner, the

audience immediately realizes the liberal is immature and unprofessional.

Counterattack to Raising the Volume:

The entire reason for liberals to use the raising volume tactic in the first place is to anger you and

engage you in a shouting match. Liberals are used to shouting, yelling and screaming, and

responding in such a manner shifts the debate into one that is on their terms; this leads them to

victory. It makes you look like a hothead who cannot handle pressure, and the audience starts to see

you in a negative light.

It also makes the liberal look bad, but they try to counteract this by using the Populist Bomb,

combined with this tactic. Therefore, they make it seem like they are yelling - not because they are

immature - but because they are yelling for the people. It is a very effective trap.

The response?

First, do not lose your cool. Do not yell back, do not raise your voice, and remain calm and

collected. Let them scream and yell. Secondly, defuse their Populist Bombs (see next

counterattack), remaining calm and collected the whole time.

The result will be obvious: without the Populist Bomb to legitimize the liberals yelling and

screaming, the audience will start to see the liberal as unprofessional and immature, and as a total

hothead, similar to Howard Dean or Al Gore himself. The tactic becomes nullified, but if the liberal

continues to use it, it will only make them look worse.

Counterattack to the Populist Bomb:

The Populist Bomb, while daunting at first (since it turns the audience effectively against you), is

easy to diffuse. First off, remain calm and cool, and do not get overly defensive. Defensiveness

signals weakness, and makes the audience think that the liberal actually is right, which they are not.

The best response is to take the Populist Bomb, and make your own modification to it. You are

going to take the Populist Bomb and turn it into a Realistic Republican Populist Bomb of your own.

How can you do this? Simple, you take the strengths of the liberals Populist Bomb, and you apply

your realistic philosophy and knowledge upon it. This can best be illustrated in an example:

Liberal Populist Bomb:

You Republicans do not care about Social Security, and youre going to destroy it, at the expense of

every senior citizen in America. You want to privatize it so that big business and the stock market

can get more money, while playing games with the American peoples tax dollars, tying it into the

market. You are messing with peoples retirements! We will not let you Republicans destroy peoples

retirements!

Liberal Populist Bomb Finale:

Quit robbing senior citizens and Americans of their social security money! Stop messing with

peoples futures for the sake of your own benefit! We will not let you succeed!

Conservative Response:

Every American citizen should have the best possible opportunity for a strong and stable

retirement. The current Social Security system gives senior citizens money for retirement, but I ask

you all, can their retirement funding be improved? The answer is a resounding yes. Let people

control their own social security money in a private account, which the government can never mess

with; let people invest that money in the stock market if they choose to. This gives people an

opportunity, which they never could have had before: an opportunity to have much more money for

retirement than what plain old basic Social Security gives them! Current Social Security only yields a

2% return on investment once a person retires; privatization could raise that amount exponentially!

Conservative Response Finale:

It is your money, your retirement, and you should be able to do with it what you please- and when

youre done with it, pass it on to your heirs- something you cannot do under the current system!

Observe how you are taking the strength (the benefits for senior citizens and Americans) straight

out from the playbook of the liberals own Populist Bomb. You are taking the same emotional and

idealistic plea out of their statement, and putting it in your own.

However, instead of going on the offensive and throwing around attacks (something liberals will

often do in these bombs remember their use of the playing card deck), you are going to be

positive. You are going to present a realistic, strong case. A perfect Realistic Republican Populist

Bomb: Heavy artillery!

Counterattack to the Liberal Army:

The first thing you probably ask to yourself when this comes up is how am I supposed to

outdebate ten people at once? That is a good question, and there really is no good answer, unless

you happen to be Ronald Reagan himself, who probably could have outdebated the entire

Democratic Party back in his time. However, for us common folk, there is a solution, albeit a

simpler one:

Change the environment.

What does that mean? Well, you need to make sure you are not outnumbered to begin with. When

you engage in a debate, set the terms that it is one-on-one early, this negates the advantage of the

liberal army. If liberals violate these rules, walk out and refuse to debate with them until they

comply with your one-on-one request. If they refuse to, ask if you are allowed to bring in more

conservatives to back you up. If they challenge your strength and resolve, challenge their strength

and resolve; after all, they already have the numbers advantage. If they are so right, why do they

need it? Ask them that. Challenge them.

Liberals have large egos and are provoked easily. When you challenge them and imply that they are

being cowardly by not debating you one-on-one, they will likely respond by accepting your challenge

of a one-on-one. Moreover, if they do not, well, they prove your point that they are being cowardly.

It is simple.

You can even try to ask for a moderator to make sure your debate stays one-on-one, and that it

remains under control. Moderation negates many liberal tactics, and gives you the edge, just like a

one-on-one debate does.

Conclusion

Taking all you have learned in the above sections into account, you are now well armed to outdebate

any liberal. You now understand their mindset, their tactics and how to counter those tactics.

However, there are a few final universals that you should remember, and they are listed below.

Good luck in your debates, and prove to the world how wrong liberals truly are.

Do not get angry, ever

Remain calm, cool, collected, and relaxed

Be professional

Use facts, figures, and statistics, but never excessively

Use a decent amount of emotion- show people you really do care

Be realistic- always imply that youre the more realistic one, because you are