Adults are remarkably reflective of the children they once were… and they argue in much the same manner.

I learned a lot about adults in my years as a fifth grade teacher.  How?

As a veteran teacher, I became quite adept at recognizing perennial behavior patterns in children. I compiled a list of recurring claims in outbursts of backtalk. In the early years of my career, I would succumb to the typical teacher hubris and commence arguing with the student to “put him in his place”, or other misguided authoritarian claims common to the stereotypical teacher attitude. Well, ultimately, the ensuing exchange was merely a pointless waste of time (which I eventually concluded was the intent of the student from the beginning; an attempt to interrupt the lesson for an opportunity to engage in some “officially sanctioned” goofing off, anything to get off the topic of the lesson.)

Subsequently, I have discovered that adults are not much different that the kids they once were. They engage in the discussion of controvertible subjects with recurring tactics, much a children do in school. Democrats, I have discovered, use a predictable bank of tactics. They even use a predictable bank of talking points, usually begging the question with them as though they are self-evident truths that can be used as evidence… which they are not; “begging the question” is a logical fallacy, making the claim invalid.

I have also discovered, in retrospect, ineffective tactics of my own. I invariably walk away from an argument with a Democrat kicking myself at the poor display of debate skills I just exhibited. I always lose, or at least feel like I lost, the argument… usually bowing out to rescue myself from the collision course with an impending outburst of rage.

Here is a short list of some of my findings. I tried to summarize it into a memorable bullet list of political argument tips.

The prevailing strategy of a Democrat is to control the narrative:

They will use multiple tactics with which to accomplish this strategy. Pay attention to these tactics because they are recurring, and, if you keep a mental record of them, you can plan rebuttals using logic as opposed to references to faith or other claims that will never succeed in convincing a Democrat that she or he has lost the argument.

I will start with some suggestions.  I have retro-critically analyzed my failed arguments with political opponents.  These suggestions are based on mistakes I have made in the past, and, regrettably, continue to make.  So, I emphasize the importance of preparation when it comes to political argument tactics.

• Refrain from cajoling… you will not succeed in eliciting sympathy from a Democrat; they are too arrogant and possessive of their beliefs. Obviously they are not swayed by reference to the human carnage of abortion on demand, therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that they value their own beliefs over anything a Conservative could posit as a “poster child” for sympathy.
• Refrain from quoting the Bible or referencing the supreme authority of God: Words of solemn significance to the Christian Faith have no effect on those who do not share that faith. Likewise, any Dictum from the Bible, regardless of its power in the hearts of Christians, will have no effect on an arrogant atheist, or devil’s advocate of any persuasion who likes to aggravate rancor in Christians by attacking their beliefs.  I once pulled out the coup-de-grace in an argument with a Democrat over a religious issue, “abomination”. I was convinced that the solemn impact of this word would bolster my argument such that he would bow his head in defeat, symbolically handing over his sword in political defeat. As I should have expected, it had no effect whatsoever, other than cause me to suffer retrospective humiliation at the cajoling tone of voice with which I presented that most sacred of terms… bah, I only made a fool of myself. You will only experience frustration in your failure to effectively reference your own faith…So, don’t do it.

It is a good plan to, citing the philosophy of General Douglas MacArthur, “know your enemy”. It is wise to keep mental notes of the recurring tactics of your Democratic opponents, or even write them down… there is no shame in jotting notes during an argument. This especially true if you encounter the same person in an endless war of political attrition, arguing the same themes ad nauseam on a daily, weekly, yearly basis…

It is encouraging to know that Democrats universally use a recurring bank of argument tactics. They also tend to argue in “talking points” or “mantras”; they use the same go-to terminology and pet claims as evidence in a predictable manner. Here are some of the things I have noticed about the characteristics of the Democrats I have encountered.

• Defiance: They are unwilling to yield. You will need to stay focused on the issue specific to the topic of discussion. They are masters of putting you on the defensive. So, even though you began the argument with a belief you hold to be self-evident, they will ultimately cause you self-doubt such that you are relegated to defending the overall integrity of your political, religious, and cultural beliefs as a whole, let alone the original topic of discussion.
• Shrewdness: They will try to confuse you by attempting to divert attention from the issue. Their defiance manifests itself in every diversionary tactic known to debate enthusiasts worldwide. It is vital that you deflect these diversionary tactics and stay on the original topic. (Well, I did some research into logical fallacies and discovered that everything Democrats predictably use as a diversionary tactic is some type of logical fallacy that renders their counter-claim invalid.)
• Guile: They predictably attempt to transfer culpability to a Republican politician or other public figure. They invariably will counter-charge a Republican with an “equal and opposite” stigma that “absolves” their pet politician of any wrongdoing by proxy of scapegoat hypocrisy. Although they are 100% guilty of hypocrisy themselves, they often place the entire basis of their rebuttal on this “you too”, “Tu Quoque” fallacy.  Pointing out hypocrisy is not a valid claim:  Hypocrisy does not invalidate the logic of the claim.  So, in logic, there is indeed a “do as I say, not as I do” validation…
• Stubbornness: They will never concede your point in an argument, let alone convert to your beliefs. Never confront their belief with your belief as a rebuttal. Stick to logic. They are as beholden to their beliefs as you are to yours. You will not change their minds; you will not convert them, politically or religiously; you will not get them to back down from their claim. The only way to keep the upper hand in the argument and come out with your dignity is to confront their claims and counter-claims as logically invalid. That takes a little homework. I will try to help with that.

 

In future blog posts, I plan to address specific tactics to plan for, as well as specific logical fallacies your political opponents commonly use.