The old Laurel and Hardy comedy routine about turning a coin-flip decision into something which resembles the stealing of the 2000 Presidential election should be kept in mind when any liberal attempts to debate with a conservative because, conservative oratorical values and debating styles are quite different than what the liberals are used to using. To the conservative lying and being a hypocrite are splendid examples of modern Christian living. When they discuss contentious topics the conservative is not obliged to use the courteous rules of discourse. Here are some Conservative Debate Rules:
The Bumper Stickers vs. White Papers Rule.
Hubert Humphries complained to his staff that his oratory seemed to bore the audience. They told him that shorter, snappier points were more of a crowd pleaser than a long and through explanation of his philosophy and any possible exceptions to his general rules.
The Image Rule
When Hubert Humphries asked his staff why the public had a perception that he was short, they bluntly replied by telling him that he had a big head and that if you parked the Goodyear Blimp on top of the Washington Monument, it would look short.
The Ann Coulter’s legs Rule
If Ann Coulter is wearing a thigh high skirt when ske makes a clever point, how can a disreputable looking liberal guy refute her legs?
The “Here comes the Hindenburg!” Rule
The liberal, when he is permitted his 10 second opportunity to respond, must always stick to the subject. If the conservative is being trounced in the debate, he must immediately divert the topic to something completely irrelevant and extraneous.
The “Never give up!” Rule
In the book the leader of Germany wrote while he was in prison, he urged his followers to never admit that the opposition had the least possibility of being correct on anything.
The Divide and Conquer Rule
Conservatives (in public) adhere to the “One for all and all for one” advice, but the Democrats can be counted on to let a good pro-liberal talking point go unnoticed. Example: Do you think this column will be cross-posted in the Huffington Post? Not even if this particular section is cut?
The Contradictions Rule
Democrats operate on the premise that they should stick to proper debating tactics and that a flat-out unsubstantiated contradiction is invalid. Republicans will reply that famous social critic Montague Python would refute the premise that contradicting isn’t arguing, by saying: “Yes it is!”
The too Obtuse Rule
If Dennis Miller refuses to use any segment of his show to discuss the Robert Brasallich case because it was too obscure to be of interest to his audience, is it possible that he has ulterior motives?
The “My God can beat up your god” Rule.
The only person who can be given the chance to refute a Christian minister must be a Muslim woman in burke and facemask.
The Three Examples Rule
In an intermural (should the commets section be hijacked and go into a debate about the difference between “intermural” and “intramural”?) situation where the ignorant liberal must be inculcated with the correct way to think, any broad statement by the liberal must be challenged and a scholastic level of substantiating material must be provided. The conservative, who is omnipotent and infallible, can speak <I>ex cathedra</I> and is therefore exempt of any pesky need to digress by dispense the specifics about where the dumbfounded (conservatives have mostly found that the liberals are dumb) liberal can verify the veracity of the citations.
Example: Brushing aside requests for sources to verify the broad sweeping assertion that the issue of the Queen Mary’s location on December 6, 1941 has been put to rest. If our fact checker can not find any means of verifying that statement and a conservative says “that issue was put to rest years ago and isn’t worth reexamining” that’s known as “ducking the question” and is an invaluable conservative debating dodge.
On the other hand, when a liberal has the impudence to attempt to establish a contradictory statement, he (no conservative will waste time engaging a woman in a philosophical discussion) must “give three examples.”
The “Always besmirch a liberal’s source’s qualifications and/or reputation” Rule
When a liberal does give a source for his opinion, it must be vigorously challenged. Example. Barron Siegfried L. von Richthofen III personally told me that all German Shepherds are registered as Republicans. A conservative would refute that by reminding the audience that Siggy was very mean drunk and an SOB (no disrespect to your mom Siggy) and therefore his conclusion should not get any attention or credence (will “Looking Out My Back Door” be this week’s closing song?) when he is used as a scholarly source.
The Incredulous Rule
When a conservative is called something (say he is called a “conservative troll”), the proper response is to use a “I can’t believe you’d say something that stupid” reply accompanied by an expression that conveys a combination of hurt and outrage. Example: Is that supposed to be a “put down”? (Does a put down artist go around shooting horses who have just broken a leg?)
The Ad Hominem Rule
When a source is denounced for personal shortcomings (such as a famous night of drunken debauchery) that is an invalid debating strategy and is noted as such in any debating competition. Conservatives, however, refuse to abandon the ploy.
The “Just kidding, dude!” Rule
If a conservative is challenged for saying says something that is borderline racist the reply will be that attempts at humor are exempt from close scrutiny. Liberals are so very sensitive to not wanting to hurt anyones feelings, ever, for anything, that they will almost never avail themselves of this opportunity to make snide remarks. Thus giving conservatives a distinct debating advantage.
The Perfection Rule
Conservative need not be shackled by petty details; however if a liberal pundit makes one spelling urror; that invalidates the entire effort.
Warren Commission Magic Bullet Rule
If a wild idea helps with conservative goals such as refuting ideas that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t shoot President Kennedy (because he couldn’t get off all the shots in the time span heard on the recording of the police officer’s open mike broadcast of the shooting) then go for it. Was the Warren Commission’s official motto: “You got your head right, Luke?”
The “Cut to the Chase” Rule
If a liberal speaker seems to be making too many salient points cut him short and snarl: “So What’s Your Point?”
The altruism is for fools Rule.
Wouldn’t it be very sad and poignant if sincere liberals donated their time and efforts to libear web sites only to have their efforts sabotaged by paid conservative trolls who use dishonest and misleading debating tactics?
Quote (overheard in movie theater in Pasadena, earlier this week): “The effect of this bill is they’ll have no clothes but be eating caviar.”
The disk jockey wants to play the “Theme from the X Files” and we want him to play Bobby Darren’s “Mack the Knife.” After loosing a coin toss, he will play the song with a shark in it and so it’s time to cut out. Have a “sharp as a razorblade” type week.
Bob, I like your rules. You forgot one, though, that takes place in person-to-person conversation — whenever the liberal makes a point the neocon can’t refute, instead of changing the subject, the neocon just raises his voice and continues to talk over the dumbstruck liberal as if nothing had been said. It’s surprising how often this gambit works to finally shut the liberal up in total frustration.
BTW, minor correction: It’s Hubert ‘Humphrey’ not ‘Humphries.’
Here’s an anecdote re Humphrey that I can’t confirm: Supposedly, during the 1968 Dem Convention, Humphrey wanted to make a statement scolding the cops for the way they were treating the demonstrators and asking for peace on both sides. An aide told Hubert if he did that he’d look weak, and lose Mayor Daley and any slim chance in the South in the general election, so he never made that statement. While he kept Daley onboard, he lost the South anyway to Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
Comment by RS Janes — June 13, 2009 @ 8:13 am
“Loose” means opposite of tight.
“Lose” means opposite of win.
Comment by bittershaman2 — June 13, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
So did ‘Humrhrey’ in 1968 — the opposite of win, that is.
I wasn’t a Humphrey fan, but just think if Nixon had not pulled off that illegal scuttling of the Paris Peace Talks with North Vietnam (LBJ had a deal) and Humphrey had entered the final stretch with the Vietnam War settled — ‘peace with honor.’ Instead, Kissinger secretly went to the NV and told them that, if elected, Nixon would broker a better deal than the one they were about to sign with LBJ. Of course, Nixon lied, as usual. It was the lie that brought us Watergate and, I’m convinced, Reagan, both Bushes and everything that’s going on now. Most of the people like Cheney and Rove are former Nixonites who believed he should have cracked down rather than resign. If Nixon had lost in ’68, and there was no Watergate, we might never heard of them again, not to mention the thousands of Americans who would not have died or been maimed in Vietnam. It’s a real tragedy.
Comment by RS Janes — June 13, 2009 @ 6:35 pm