Monday, August 15, 2011

How to Debate a Liberal

I’m lazy today.  I’m more in the mood for a good laugh.  The following is from the “Red Shtick Magazine” from Baton Rouge, LA, way back in 2010.  I wrote it.  I write for them once a month.  The name of the magazine is a twist on the name of Baton Rouge (Red Stick in French) and the fact that it’s all comedians writing in it about satirical things (the Shtick part).  It’s like my personal therapy every month, where I can write about whatever grabs my attention.  The column used to be called “Party of One” until I got married, but now it’s “The Wright Wing” based off my last name and the way my conservative side has emerged.  If you are really bored, check out my past work.  You’ll get a good laugh. 

How to Debate a Liberal
"Red Shtick Magazine, May 2010"
by Mudbug 

I am a man who enjoys a good debate. I like to pick the brains of people both smarter and dumber than myself. I enjoy the rare chances to peer into people’s mindsets and see life from their unique points of view. 
I relish in the knowledge that we can disagree from the start, have a civil and meaningful debate, and still leave as friends. God, I miss the good old days.
Now, I can’t get two words in edgewise anymore before the name-calling begins. Believe me, people: I have plenty of ex-girlfriends and family members to remind me of my place on this planet without you making the crux of your argument, regardless of the topic, the circumstances surrounding my conception and the various reasons why my mother has to hang meat around my neck so the dogs will play with me. 
I lay the blame for the aforementioned problem squarely on the liberals of this country who have been taught by the mainstream media how to argue.
Let’s start with a few assumptions about myself. 
Yes, I’m white, male, and own a gun. I love my country but hate where this country is heading. I hate socialism, the nanny state, and welfare society. 
I earn my money from working hard and don’t like sharing it with people who don’t want to work. I firmly believe that it’s a parent’s job to parent, not the job of Washington, D.C. 
I hate the way I’m portrayed by the liberal media as a hater of the environment, other races, other religions, and whatever they feel like tagging me with to push their agenda. I actually plan to add solar panels and wind turbines to my house. 
I watch Fox News, along with CNBC and CNN, and I read The Wall Street JournalThe OnionThe New York Times, and the Alamosa Valley Courier. I like to get my news from all angles, not just the right or the left. 
I believe that welfare should be a hand up, not a handout. I’m anti-Big Government and pro-states’ rights. I’m pro-choice (more government regulations), but a fiscal conservative. And I will never apologize for what and who I am — an American.
With that said, I had a debate a few weeks ago on Facebook over high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). 
My adversary’s position was that HFCS needs to be banned because Big Corn gets huge subsidies and is poisoning America. He went on to say that farm subsidies go only to Big Corn, and the government needs to regulate HFCS.  
I countered with the facts that farm subsidies keep food prices low and are a safety net for poor farmers, too. I also said that maybe, just maybe, HFCS is in so many products because it’s cheap and we like cheap food. 
The option to get food without HFCS is there, but it’s a personal choice, and I find it hard to believe that HFCS is killing humans. I think that set him off.
He wrote that HFCS was introduced in the ’80s and is the sole cause of obesity in America. 
I mentioned that, in the same decade, we saw the introduction of personal computers, VCRs, video games, satellite TV, and cable TV to give a generation more enticement to stay indoors and not go play outside.
With that, he called me a liar and told me that there are not one but two documentaries by journalism students (who are known to be both knowledgeable in farming and unbiased, to boot) on how Big Corn is raping America. And I believe that was the end of any rational conversation. 
When I questioned the journalism student’s documentary, I was told I was in the bed of Big Corn, watched only Faux News, and was one of those teabaggers.
See, that’s the problem. I can’t point/counterpoint with most liberals, because if I don’t see it their way, hook, line, and sinker, I’m not only wrong, but I become the center of their attack. There is no compromise, no “agree to disagree.” 
If I differ from them, the litany of personal attacks spews with no end. I am just dismissed as a teabagger, less than human, a racist against the president, or misguided and uneducated. 
I just can’t seem to wrap my head around the fact that liberals worship our First Amendment right. It seems to apply only to their right to free speech and opinion. 
My opinions are wrong and need to be stifled until I agree with them. As far as they are concerned, the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply only in furtherance of their cause, and any part to the contrary is outdated and warped. 
I’ve learned to deal with this handicap over the years when it comes to a debate over government with liberals. First, I always ask, “And how do we change that?”
That usually befuddles the ones that are spouting the talking points. That question always pissed off an ex-girlfriend, forcing her to respond with “This is why nobody likes you” instead of a real answer. 
It’s not like I have a magic wand to fix the environment. That’s for making grilled cheese sandwiches.
The next trick is to proudly demand that they cite their sources. Many times, their sources are less then reputable. 
The issue of the environment provides a good example. 
There was a news report out that the environmental paper that won a Nobel Prize was looked at by college professors here in the U.S., and if a student had written it, he would have failed on most of the 45 chapters. They went on to say that most of the chapters’ references were nonscientific magazine and newspaper articles and internet sources. 
When an environmental organization was asked for comment, they said something along the lines of “Regardless, the environment is important.” I guess research and facts are irrelevant as long as the result is in line with your agenda.
But then again, I’m mean and hateful. And I like to club baby seals and spray Freon into the atmosphere. 
The final way I love to end an argument with an unwavering and personal-attacking liberal is the simple smile and nod. The smarter ones usually realize that I have given up on civil conversation, and the stupider ones think they have won, report that to the mother ship, and claim their prize for having converted another “free thinker.”  
Just be sure not to nod when being asked to protest. That’s just the worst.
So, free thinkers, when you are in a heated debate and informed that you are a <insert push-button topic here>ophobe, remember to ask your opponent how he proposes to make it better and to cite his sources, then politely smile and nod. Slowly pray that he hasn’t bred yet as you cash your check from Big Corn for slowly poisoning America.

Link to my article on "How to Debate a Liberal"

No comments:

Post a Comment