Connect with us

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Federalist with a low tolerance for stupidity. Former NRA EVC, Cruz Precinct Captain, Board Member of GRAA, and registered gun rights lobbyist. Proud mom of a US Army Veteran.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

The Naked Truth Of Guiding Principles.

Published

on

By

The ‘SI Swimsuit edition’ is a perfect ‘illustration’ [pardon the pun] of why one needs bedrock principles.

For a moment, imagine the editorial meeting on the upcoming Sports Illustrated “Swim Suit” issue. Someone comes up with the brilliant idea of going after the premise of women as pure sex objects by making women pure sex objects – but with grease paint. After a brief, awkward silence a sycophant in true echo chamber style agrees with the concept with everyone else chimes in with approbation over the sheer genius of the idea.

This is what happens when there is no sane voice in the room that points out the sheer absurdity of the such a suggestion and steers the meeting back to more reasonable topics. It is (almost literally) the modern version of the emperor’s new clothes, a new cautionary tale of what happens under extreme groupthink. The ‘me too’ movement is now imploding in on itself because it has no real direction or guiding principles.

Two Different Revolutions, Two Different Outcomes.

Now, compare the results of the American and French revolutions with the impact of one having underlying principles to keep things on an even keel. The magnificent words of the Declaration of Independence penned by Thomas Jefferson set the framework for the new nation keeping subsequent events from spinning out of control. Such was not the case with the tragic results of the French revolution for want of bedrock moral code to keep mobile vulgus at bay.

It should be clearly evident that recent events have reaffirmed that one must have a set of guiding principles or be at risk of suffering the same consequences that have afflicted all too many of the past.

Everything from the current budget deal that is being opposed by the House Freedom Caucus as reported on The Right Scoop  to the gift to the Socialist-Left Media of the possibly of having an Illinois Nazi run as a Republican in the state’s Third Congressional [and ‘very Democratic’] District as reported by the New York Times.  Its location that includes part of Chicago should mean the man doesn’t have a chance. But that won’t stop the national Media from endlessly smearing the GOP with the story.

Guiding Principles are key to a political party’s continued success.

Following a clearly articulated set of Conservative values would hold such circumstances at bay. The basic principles set forth in our nation’s founding documents of individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise. Or as presented by The Federalist party.

Holding on to such principles will keep us from digging ourselves into the budgetary hole we presently find ourselves. It will also short-circuit the media’s obsession with connecting us with a group of Socialists. There is a reason why they are labeled a platform or guiding principles, they are the foundational constructs of what we stand for, and what we oppose.

Continue Reading

Federalists

Wisconsin GOP offers choice of either a RINO or a racist for Congress

Published

on

It’s been a little over a quarter of a century since Ronald Reagan rode off into the California sunset; ever since that day the GOP has worked to destroy conservatives and conservative principles and, as a result, the party itself

This terminal condition gave rise to a group of Republicans we’ve come to know as RINOs (Republican In Name Only) because it used to be that the words “Republican” and “conservative” were synonymous. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Besides the election of Donald Trump, there is perhaps no better example of just how far the GOP has fallen from its conservative values than the rise of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan into positions of leadership. This devolution has become prima facie evidence of why now is the time for conservatives fed up with Republicans who have become nothing more than inarticulate Democrats to form a new party.

For those who would challenge my conclusions, I invite you to consider the upcoming GOP primary race between Paul Ryan and Paul Nehlen in Wisconsin.

When Paul Ryan became Speaker of the House, I knew that based on his track record of spinelessness that he wouldn’t be anymore conservative than his predecessor, John Boehner. Needless to say, I wouldn’t shed any tears if the early inductee into my Gutless On Principles Hall of Shame were to be kicked out of his cushy job in Congress this November, but should Paul Nehlen be the guy to replace him? Not a snowball’s chance in Hell.

With the support of Breitbart, along with Steve Bannon’s redefinition of conservatism, Nehlen challenged Ryan in 2016–a campaign he lost by 70 percentage points despite receiving additional support from Donald Trump and an army of alt-right nationalists who had found a home with Bannon and Trump.

In his 2018 campaign, Nehlen has taken his alt-right nationalist beliefs to David Duke levels by openly attacking Jews. In an appearance on Duke’s radio show, Nehlen stated how the “relentless attacks” against his “America First” position were due to his belief that “Jews control the media.”

As it currently stands, the GOP in Wisconsin is offering a choice between a RINO and a racist for Congress. Using the now widely accepted “lesser of two evils” approach to voting, that means that one of these men will represent the irreparable party in November.

By the way, Wisconsin isn’t an isolated case. Such losing binary choices are being foisted on conservatives all over America. I can only hope that an army of dedicated patriots will rise up and say, ENOUGH!

The solution to America’s problems won’t come from the two-party duopoly owned and operated by the Republicans and the Democrats. It’s up to us to draw a line in the sand, stand our ground, and defend our conservative values.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Federalists

California eyeing State-run bank for marijuana

Published

on

The State of the Union address is over and as expected, the Left side of the aisle is saying everything good in this country right now is because of Obama and Trump is taking credit for his accomplishments.

Conversely, the Right is saying everything good happening in the country is because of Trump. It’s the typical partisan spin put out by both parties. Each goes to their own corner to defend their cause even if they might be wrong.

We have become so accustomed to the divisiveness that any bi-partisan agreement is labeled a sellout and any politician is worthy of a primary challenge if they are marked a sellout because they are not ideologically pure.

It’s the typical Red shirts versus Blue shirts game.

So when you’re the Republican candidate for California State Controller, and the California State Treasurer and Attorney General come out with an idea for a state-run bank for marijuana, I should immediately dismiss it because they are Democrats and I’m a Republican.

Well, not that I don’t have my concerns with a state-run bank, run by a state that can’t properly manage its own finances and the answer to every question is to raise more taxes.

Don’t get me wrong I’m no fan of the quasi-governmental private-public bank that controls monetary policies in the United States called, The Federal Reserve. This does not mean as a Federalist that this idea isn’t worth studying.

Background

According to the Sacramento Bee:

Because of the federal prohibition on marijuana, banks generally will not provide accounts to cannabis companies, forcing them to pay taxes and other expenses in cash. The resulting safety problems and accounting complications have been brought to the fore by the Jan. 1 start of legal recreational pot sales in California.

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been on a crusade to stamp out state-legalized marijuana. Thus tensions between the states and the federal government over marijuana are at an all-time high; no pun intended.

Why it’s worth considering

I’m no fan of marijuana, but as a Federalist, the criminalization and regulation of marijuana on the federal level is not an enumerated power given to the federal government. This is a state’s power issue.

If you are okay with what Jeff Sessions is doing, then I’m assuming you were fine when the Obama Administration was working to force banks to dump gun stores.

Remember, you can’t have it both ways. You either want to limit centralized government, or you just want your team to control everything and do what you want.

If you liked the power Obama had then you should be fine with Trump wielding the same powers or vice versa.

If you don’t like the person wearing the other jersey having that much power because of their ability to abuse that power then it is time to reconsider how we do government from the federal government all the way to local government.

Are there concerns with a state-run bank

Yes, there are concerns, and in the same Sacramento Bee article they mentioned a few:

“The obstacles to creating a public financial institution are formidable, including the difficulty of getting deposit insurance, unknown start-up costs, investment likely to measure in the billions of dollars, and the probability of losses for several years or more that taxpayers would have to cover,” the report states.

“For a state that is already plagued with so many economic problems, despite its recent budget surplus, the idea of the state running its own bank should worry every person in California,” said Yaël Ossowski, the Deputy Director for the Consumer Choice Center in Washington, D.C.

There is also another proposal to work within the framework of existing state-chartered banks.

State Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, also is pursuing the idea of a state bank for cannabis businesses. Last week, he introduced a bill that would allow state-chartered banks, credit unions and other financial institutions to open checking and savings accounts and for marijuana businesses.

Principles over Party

So even though California politicians didn’t lift a finger to protect California gun shops from the Obama administration, we should be willing to consider any idea that limits the scope of the federal government’s reach.

You never know, this might just help protect our 2nd Amendment Rights during the next Democratic administration.

Even if the intentions of the State Treasure and State Attorney General are not to your liking, its okay. The point is, if you want to limit the power and scope of the federal government then we should take this opportunity to see how we can best do it.

This does not mean the resulting proposal will be good. I do have real concerns, but before we shut the door to even doing a study on this and discussing it, let’s see what the possibilities are and what we can learn.


Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at cacontroller.com, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.