Intro: The Manual to Debating a Liberal, from a former Liberal
A mere year ago, I was a liberal Democrat. I fell under many of the things I describe below, and I used many of the tactics that I describe below. After my ideology changed (to Republican), thanks to much research and being realistic on my part, I realized that many conservatives simply cannot engage liberals in debates very well. Not because conservatives aren’t right- because I truly believe that they are- but because liberals are very good at playing politics. And included in politics are their tactics in debates.
I now present to you the following guide, on how to defeat liberals in debates. I’m pretty confident I would have shredded myself apart from a year ago if I tried to debate myself using this guide, and I think you’ll make good use of it as well. E-mail me at email@example.com if you have any questions or comments.
Sunny S. Sidhu
Former Liberal Democrat, Current Conservative Republican, Future Conservative Republican
Section 1: The Liberal Mindset
In order to debate liberals, we must first understand their mindset. Why they think the way they do, why they believe in their particular stances, and, generally, their world view. This can be summed up rather easily by looking at the types of people who ARE liberals. There are two key groups we must look at (note, however, that there are many exceptions in these groups, but in general, most liberals will fall under at least one of the following categories)
The “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck”
Now, 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” are an interesting group of people. They’re 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.” They’re especially found 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.
These people are usually fairly responsible, fairly intelligent, and 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 them. Thus, they fall into an ideological world view, 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 liberals supported communism- they thought people would be happy with “to each according to their need”…clearly, that did not work)
These people believe that things like abortion should be legal, because people will be responsible with it, and not take advantage of it. These people believe that drugs should be legalized, for the same reasons. These people 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. These people 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 these people: they’re frequently not in touch with reality itself- they’re like bookworms. They don’t realize the problems in the world for what they really are, but think they do.
Therefore, they fall victim to an ideological world view which simply does not work in reality: liberalism.
Everything these intellectuals do now has been done before, in essence: Karl Marx once presented an ideological leftist world view. It didn’t work, but it sure sounded great when he presented his ideology. What looks good on paper may not look good in reality, and 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 them; they’re very elitist to a sense, and therefore blindly hold to their ideology despite any arguments thrown at them. It is Ivy League arrogance, journalistic elitism, and whatever else you can name, at its finest.
The “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck”
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 are the people who think they’ve been wrong or disadvantaged, or have been told that they’ve been wronged or disadvantaged. They’re also being told that the opposing parties (Republicans and conservatives) 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.” This is used VERY often by liberals, so get ready to hear a lot of it. 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, destroying.
In essence, it is fear mongering targeted at certain groups of people in society, and it works. These Democrats and liberals attempt to spin the issues into backing up this fear mongering, and people listen to it. And as a result, this entire second group is formed- the “victims” of the Democratic Playing Card Deck.
These people often 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” and “racists” because of the lies that the liberal left has drilled into their heads.
Key Liberal Characteristics
Based on the previous two groups, you’ve got one group of people that is ideological, unrealistic, and elitist. Then you’ve got a second group that is fearful, angry, resentful, and therefore has a closed mind towards reality- or any other person’s opinions if they differ from their own.
Section 2: 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 who the person is, if they’re a liberal, they always make use of the same arsenal. This is likely due to the fact that they’re 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.
The reasoning will be obvious once we are done looking at the weapons themselves. Here they are, in no particular order:
Tactic Number One: Interruption
This one will be used often, 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 up- the common liberal will use this weapon often. Why? Because it stops you from getting your point across- and if you don’t 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 can be 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:
Time and time again, liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are simply not ready for it. Conservatives are also generally more classy, 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 that is geared at conservatives in particular, and preys off the fact that conservatives are generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered people than liberals. This one makes use of another fact: conservatives are quieter people than liberals, 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’ll 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 also do it to try to weaken the conservative’s resolve. They also want to engage the opposition in a “shouting match,” as this plays to a liberal’s 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 that 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 Playing Card Deck” group. Of course, these said people do not realize they’re being dragged into such a group, but the liberals know it, as they’re trying to get more people on their side.
So what is a Populist Bomb? It’s 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 totally false), and it also 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 won’t be raised. While these two things contradict each other when one looks into the finances behind such proposals, common people don’t know this, and therefore they’ll 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 merely 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’ll go, almost in any debate you get into, unless you control the environment of the debate. This tactic speaks volumes about liberals and how truly wrong their philosophy is- yet it is a tactic that is so effective because of sheer numbers.
The “Liberal Army” tactic is simple: you’re 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. It is a “pile on top of the ball carrier” tactic that has a 99% success rate, unless the conservative is prepared.
Often, the conservative is not, and they lose the debate out of being totally and completely overwhelmed, as long as being shocked and dazed after being attacked from so many sides.
Section 3: 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 went over. Not only this, but they must know how to effectively respond to the tactics. It is what occurs in response to liberal tactics that leads to liberal victories in debates; it is NOT the liberal’s 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 liberal’s advantage.
Counterattack to Interruption:
This one is simple, and will really make 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 audience’s 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’ve 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’re 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’s a good open-minded audience.
Counterattack to Bomb-Throwing:
Bomb-throwing is something that’s hard to deal with, as it tries to trick the audience AND you at the same time; it 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.
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.
It 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” and 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
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’re yelling, not because they’re immature, but because they’re “yelling for the people.” It is a very effective trap.
The response? First of all, 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 liberal’s 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 is thus 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’re 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 liberal’s 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 you’re 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 people’s tax dollars, tying it into the market. You are messing with people’s retirements! We will not let you Republicans destroy people’s retirements!!!
Liberal Populist Bomb Finale: Quit robbing senior citizens and Americans of their social security money! Stop messing with people’s 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 you’re done with it, pass it on to your heirs- something you cannot do under the current system!
Observe how you’re taking the strength (the benefits for senior citizens and Americans) straight out from the playbook of the liberal’s own Populist Bomb. You’re 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’re going to be positive. You’re 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. But 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’re 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 to your one-on-one request. If they refuse to, ask if you’re 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’re 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’re being cowardly by not debating you one-on-one, they will likely respond by accepting your challenge of a one-on-one. And if they don’t, 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.
Section 4: Conclusion, and Good Luck!
Taking all you’ve 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!