“How to Debate a Liberal,” a systematic guide to trouncing a lefty opponent.

How do you debate a liberal who is determined to paint you as a racist, sexist, homophobe who still believes the Earth is flat?

For the answer, we look to KTTH host Ben Shapiro, fabled agitator of leftists everywhere. Shapiro has figured out a winning formula to defeat flawed leftist rhetoric.

On Oct. 3, 2013, Shapiro gave a groundbreaking lecture at the University of California San Diego’s David Horowitz Freedom Center called “How to Debate a Liberal,” a systematic guide to trouncing a lefty opponent.

Want a free eBook of Shapiro’s “How to Debate a Liberal” lesson? Click here to sign up to be a member – it’s free! – at Shapiro’s Truth Revolt website.

Shapiro opened his lecture with a useful lesson from recent political history: that Republicans lost the 2012 presidential election not because of policy, but because Democrats were able to frame Mitt Romney as a “bad guy,” and Barack Obama as a “nice guy.”

It’s a common leftist “bully tactic,” Shapiro says, that you must outmaneuver in order to win the debate.

Here are Shapiro’s steps to winning an argument against a liberal.

EMBRACE THE FIRE

Politics is war, Shapiro says, crediting his late friend Andrew Brietbart. So, if you’re going to get into a debate with a liberal, be ready to punch them hard – but also be willing to sustain a few punches yourself.

“You have to be willing to take the first punch,” Shapiro said.

Of course, that’s a rhetorical punch. You can land a hard one with the next step.

FRAME YOUR OPPONENT

Discussing gun control with liberal CNN host Piers Morgan on live TV in January 2013, Shapiro scored a near knockout in the first few seconds of the debate by framing his opponent. He accused Morgan of standing on the graves of murdered children to further his anti-gun agenda.

The result? Shapiro appeared as the victor in the debate, and as a reasonable, levelheaded, and competent opponent. Turn your lefty opponent’s ludicrous tactics against them by framing them as the bad guy.

FRAME THE DEBATE

Just as important as step No. 2 is putting your opponent on the defensive by framing the debate in a way that they are unfamiliar with, Shapiro says.

If the debate is about global warming, do not debate on whether it is manmade. Rather, debate about what policies can solve it.

If you are debating gun rights, prepare yourself for the standard liberal argument, which is that we don’t need guns at all. Instead, ask them what we can do to curb gun violence, and violence as a whole.

“You have to frame the debate in ways they’re not familiar with,” Shapiro said. “Otherwise, it turns into a character argument. You’re a flat-Earther, you’re corrupt, you’re mean, you’re stupid – these are the lines of [liberal] attack.”

SPOT THEIR INCONSISTENCIES

Every single leftist argument is full of inconsistencies. They claim they want marriage equality, but at the same time they want to force churches to endorse an irreligious practice; they want universal government-sponsored health care, but they do not support forcing people to become doctors, which would be necessarily to support such a massive program.

The positive thing is this irrational logic is easy to spot. Do not be afraid to point out these wacky contradictions.

FORCE THEM TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

Sure, liberals love to put conservatives on the defense by forcing them to answer questions, but do liberals have to answer?

Force them to answer questions. If they are pro-gay marriage, ask them which parent is less vital to a family: the mother or the father. Chances are, they’ll have to concede that a family is better with a mother and a father, not just one or the other. And, if they’re for the separation of church and state, ask them if they think government should be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

DON’T GET DISTRACTED

Liberals love George W. Bush. That is, they love to invoke his name to prove that Republicans and conservatives are incompetent. Ignore weak rhetorical tactics. Stay focused on the debate at hand, not left field references that leftists use to make you look weak.

YOU DON’T HAVE TO DEFEND ALL CONSERVATIVES

It’s not your job to defend every conservative. Conservatives are human and often do any say things you might not always disagree with. Just because you voted for someone and largely agree with their views doesn’t mean you have to defend them.

If your liberal opponent wants to bring up something Reagan did or said 30 years ago, tell them to build a time machine. If you stand around defending every conservative ever, you’re going to waste a bunch of time and energy.

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW SOMETHING, ADMIT IT

You are not an oracle, and you’re not Google. You don’t need to know everything.

If a liberal challenges you on a topic you’re unfamiliar with, politely decline to talk about it. You’re allowed.

“If you don’t know something, don’t discuss the topic,” Shapiro said. “Say, ‘I haven’t researched it sufficiently.’ If they insist, tell them that they’re being unfair.

“Ego will kill you in these kinds of debates.”

LET THEM HAVE MEANINGLESS VICTORIES

Do you stand for diversity? Of course, why not?

Are you in favor of immigration reform? You betcha.

Conceding certain points to a liberal will accomplish several things. First, it puts them off guard. When they ask you if you support immigration reform, they’re expecting you to say “no,” which would allow them to accuse you of being a racist. The thing is the term “immigration reform” is essentially meaningless, which allows you to agree with it without conceding your position.

Second, it will make the liberal think you are more of a moderate, which has the effect of softening their rhetorical attack.

CONCLUSION

Above all, remember that leftists are not there to debate you; they are there to use you to prove that conservatism is a radical ideology that professes racist, sexist ideals. It isn’t true, of course, but you can’t win an argument with someone who hates you for your beliefs.

Instead, debate liberals on substance and policy, Shapiro says.

“The left has only one play,” Shapiro says. “The play is ‘you’re nasty.’”

 

Interesting..

 

Sounds like the same argument can be used against the right. It's a "how-to" to make your opponent look weak and have zero to do with being on the left or right. Take the gun control debate for example. BOTH SIDES used victims to exploit for their different agendas.

 

I don't think there's a reason to debate them. You can have fun with them, but debate requires all parties understanding and respecting the ground rules of debate. Calling people names is something we've known is not allowed since Aristotle. The problem is that they don't care about ground rules.

It's just a smorgasbord of logical fallacies if you go there, so why go there? They're incapable of being civil, so... why bother? It's like trying to debate a guy who thinks debate involves violence.

 

One would notice that the use of actual facts is not one of the chosen methods.

Interesting.

 

I have had an eye on Shapiro since he was a young prodigy. He has parlayed intellect into a calling. And he has outstanding ideas.

We on the right are correct.

Want to know why?

Bottom line, we are for human freedom.

The Democrats simply put far too much of their love for Federal Government.

While on that, who notices that in the main, it is not their city or state government they love, they love the Federal Government.

Why?

They love to use it to control an entire nation of humans.

So to them, it is entirely about control.

 

I've seen this list before and though some of it is good, disagree with lots too. Here's my list:

1. Have a written record or don't discuss politics at all with leftists. Seriously, unless you are Ben Shapiro or even Rachel Maddow with a national TV/youtube platform, it doesn't do you one bit of good to discuss politics without a written record, especially with a leftist. They have no respect for consistency, logic, context, perspective, or staying on the same topic. They have a gnat's notion of US and world history. They constantly commit the most childish logical fallacies, straw man and non sequiturs over and over. They don't actually know much about anything, as they spent all their school years slacking and in gut/snowflake studies. You WILL NOT convince or change their atrophied minds. What you -may- do with a written record, as in places like this, is sway reasonable lurkers or centrists. For everyone posting on a forum or comment board, up to 10x that number of people are lurking, some genuinely interested in learning.

... and that's it. LOL.

 

Really? this type of behavior exists on both sides. Can't begin to say how many posts on this forum I see this sort of behavior. I must admit, I am guilty of it at times.

 

When one looks at persuasion, the Democrats do not mind one bit using rocks, fuels, stealing from merchants, beating those there up, and in general support violence. Even Obama took the side of violence over peace.

Mainly as I said previously, they adore Federal Government far more than city or state forms.

Take the ACW for instance. They will defend Abe the Outlaw over state or city where the public voted. And they will insist Sumter started the war.

Were it shots fired upon the Federals, the firing at the supply ships would be what they used.

I use the real start, the formal invasion in VA. That was when killing began and not one or two got killed, many many got killed.

 

The irony......and this is not nasty? what kind of level of "debate" is this?

 

That's a very good point. Shapiro was using sophistry to get his point across, rather than logic. He's calling him a dancer on kiddie graves, which is not allowed. Morgan's soft spot is that he focused on "assault rifles" which Nugent took advantage of when he was on his show. Another weak spot in Piers' logic is by focusing on gun violence instead of violence.

Nugent's interview with him was way better than Shapiro's. You stick to the principle of the right to self defense, and you don't need to attack your opponent.

 

Yes, that I would agree with.

 

Not intended to be any sort or level of debate. The OP posted a thread and I expressed my opinion on the thread topic. Feel free to do the same.

 

Hahaha! I have beaten many libs on this forum at debate. They will not respond much once you do that. I can tell you that from experience.

 

I simply posted this for informational purposes.

 

I've read this elsewhere - except then it was touted as, "An Idiot's Guide to Being a Troll on the Internet."
Amazing how these chain e-mails just keep getting passed around year after year.

You at least ought to give the original author some kind of credit line.

 

You could call it a troll's guide to the internet, and that's a fair analysis.

On the other hand, your side just called unborn babies synonymous with cancer. People who do that really don't merit civil discourse, which is why so many conservatives no longer care about being civil. Inbetween being called racists, sexists, homophobes, and cancer, they gave up trying to be civil.

I think that's where we are right now, which is why we're seeing violence instead of discussion. The blab blab instead of war war is over, I think. It's now just war. Civil discussion is over, and now it's all about superior firepower.

 

If this is the case, the forum should just go back to being the argue with everyone forum. No need to debate anything.

 

There's a greater need now when violence is the only alternative, and we're seeing violence.

Hey, I'm not going to be called names and pretend that we are having a civil debate. If war is the only option left, then war it shall be.

 

My side? You know nothing, Jon Snow, if you think that any other people on these boards represents "my side."

 

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
- from the writings of Isaac Asimov

You are admitting to your own incompetence if you have concluded that to be the only option.

 

So basically, forego logic and honest debate for partisanship and bashing your opponent. Got it.

 

Opposed to debating with dishonest people who have no intention of being civil?

Yes, I am totally incompetent when it comes to dealing with people who have already given up on debate.

 

Problem being in your narrow view, you falsely concluded that anybody and everybody on the "left" would resort to such tactics and instead of truly wanting to debate, you come armed to "fight." Not a good start to any discussions because you already formed a negative views of people who disagree with your position.

 

Not anybody and everybody. That's a strawman. I never said ALL lefties are violent and refuse to debate. Somewhere I'm sure there is one that might want to stick to an honest debate. Not you because of the strawman, but I haven't completely given up.