Dr Guy Dr Guy

Why Conservatives are Better Debaters

Why Conservatives are Better Debaters

http://jewishmediaresources.com/article/906/

Thumbing through the latest articles on Sam Alito, I came across one by Jonathan Rosenblum (amazing what google will return with a search on key words).  This article was a little bit about Alito, but mostly it was about one man's observations of going from Liberal to Conservative in his life's journey.

Rosenblum was not always conservative as he details, in fact probably back in the 60s, he was (in his words) one of the last to don a suit.  But over time, he has gone from Ideologue to realist, and the sad part, lost many of his friends in the process.  They just could not stomach his conversion.

But the fascinating part of his trip down memory lane, was in how he describes the fact that conservatives are a minority on most Ivy League Campuses.  And being a minority, they look around and realize that there are smart people who do not believe as they do, so they have to adjust to the fact that they are not going to win debates by yelling louder, but by debating better.  And they learn to craft their arguments so that they can at least engage others in their beliefs.

Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises.

While I have not made a life long study of debating skills of liberals versus conservatives, it does not take one long, to even a casual observer, that this tendency in college, carries over into later life.  We have seen many instances of a liberal, challenged in their beliefs, resort to name calling (and some conservatives, I will grant) and what in essence amounts to yelling here on both JU and the Internet in general.

Many of us love to pop over to democratunderground.org on occasion to check out the latest rantings there.  For that is what it truly is.  Simple rantings.  And who has not heard of the Daily KOS where anyone left of Mao Tse Tung is branded a right wing firebrand (with of course no rationalization other than a betrayal of their liberal beliefs).

This is not to say that liberals cannot be good debaters.  Just that, as a general rule (and we know about the exceptions), Liberals tend to use inflammatory rhetoric instead of reasoned logic in their disagreements.  We have all been invited to share in the 'debates' of recent years, where the conservatives are going to starve the children, ban blacks to the back of the bus, and kick old people out into the cold streets.  None of these charges have any basis in fact, but they make for good 30 second sound bites, and so the liberals use them with a regularity that makes ex-lax look tame in comparison.

The quote "Anyone who is not a liberal before 30 has no heart, and anyone who is not a conservative after 40 has no brain" has been attributed to many people, most recently by Winston Churchill.  But it is true that youth is an idealistic times for many, who feel, instead of know.  So the young do tend to be more liberal than the elder citizens.  So anyone who "has no heart", must learn early that they are not in the majority in their opinions, and thus seek to persuade others to their point of view through calm and reasoned logic.  The exact ingredients that a good debater needs.

But liberals are not exposed to that kind of cross pollination all the time.  Just look at du.org?  You can post anything you want there, as long as you do not dis another liberal.  Period.  Kind of narrow minded to me, and myopic.  They are welcome to wallow in their isolation and ignorance, for it is a free country.  But they are only depriving themselves of both debating and social skills needed to function in a society that is not homogeneous.

25,735 views 92 replies
Reply #26 Top

Now, on the DCCC website, their opening statement is that the Republicans had this grand vision and didn't do what they said they would, so it's time for a change. All of the articles on the front page talk about blasting Republican politicians, with no mention of a Democratic vision.

I would go so far as to agree that the republicans have dropped the ball, and I am not happy.  However, you note the other shoe falling.  No Vision on their part.  They have not had a vision in 5 years.  ALl they are is "ABB".  And that wont work in 3 years, and may not next year.

Reply #27 Top

That is quite different from the typical liberal argument:
"You're a fucking racist nazi!!1!!"

Fortunately, not all of them.  But that is all too prevalent.

Reply #28 Top

In Europe, it's called the 'opposition party'. They oppose everything the majority party has to offer. That's their role.
Seems the Dems would like to emulate the Europeans more than they'd care to admit.

The slam against republicans is that during their nadir, they were the get along guys.  Winning some Presidencies, but generally relegated to the minority party.  Love him or hate him, Gingrich taught the republicans how to be a majority party.

Reply #29 Top
"You're a... racist nazi!"


My gosh! You're right. He IS a racist Nazi! You have swayed me. How could I align myself with a Nazi?

Sadly, that tactic really works. All too well.
Reply #30 Top

Sadly, that tactic really works. All too well.

For only the weak minds and already converted.

Reply #31 Top
I'm a liberal that is becoming more consertive and I still don't understand what is being argued here. From what I've taken from your article and the comments I tend to think the following things and I wonder what you think about it.

Liberals are often idealists.
One of those ideals is to accept others even when they disagree or don't make any sense.
Conservatives make better arguments.
Conservatives are willing to not accept others only on a logical basis. A basis that they have agreed with others on... so it is a bandwagon of sorts.
Liberals often make stupid statements that are based on emotions and not on fact. Liberals feel, while conservatives are logical.

I tend to think all of this is just talking about the democratic and republican party. No one can argue that the republican party is not one of the best organized parties we have seen and they are currently very strong. Any party that can George W. Bush re-elected and the terminator governing California--- is WAY impressive.

However, I think that many people that become conservatives become so based on financial reasons, not because they lose their ideals of their youth.

Also, do republicans really think that democrats don't have any good ideas? I think a lot of their ideas are noble and good and policies that I WANT to stand for. Whether or not their ideas would work in our current state is another question.

What do you guys think? Are you all republicans and is liberalism something that dies as you get older, bc I sure hope not!!! I want to remain an idealist, even if every now and then I sound like a child.

My gosh! You're right. He IS a racist Nazi! You have swayed me. How could I align myself with a Nazi?

Sadly, that tactic really works. All too well.

Also, I think the tactic of religion being used to sway politics works all too well also!!!
How many people in this country vote based on morals and when they say morals they mean, homosexual issues and abortion issues. SCARY that we are perhaps at war with Iraq ight now so that in the future homosexuals won't be able to marry and women will have to have those babies, no matter what the circumstance.

Now, as I have said I am becoming more republican as the days tick away, so don't think I necessarily support pro-choice and homosexual marriages, but if the above statement is true-- isn't that SCARY?

Reply #32 Top
When most Liberals put forth their great generalities about what's wrong with the world, about the best they can do is "duh" as a means of persuasion. "It's the (whatever), stupid." seems to be as deep as many are willing to go. Not that they are stupid, mind you, I just think they can't stomach the "immorality" of putting themselves in shoes they consider wrongminded or evil.

How do you help the poor? Duh, you give them money. Is war wrong? Duh, war is killing people and killing people is wrong. Is abortion a right? Duh, it's a woman's choice. "Duh" isn't an argument. how some of these folks can just assume half the world is stupid and evil is beyond me. How morally superior they must feel that they are graced with the obviousness of all that is good...

I take pride in the fact that I can sit down and make arguments AGAINST what I believe. As I am writing I see holes sometimes, and it makes me stop and reflect on what it is I am arguing for. For that reason, I can construct my arguments taking into consideration what the stance that generally opposes me might be.

That's what most Liberals seem to lack. Maybe they think that even considering the possibility that they could be wrong is being tempted by the dark side. That's basically the opposite of Liberalism, really. They are just conservative about what we consider Liberal ideals.

Conservatives are labeled "black and white" ideologues, they are accused of being moralists, and yet you'll rarely ever come across a liberal that can acknowledge the complexity of things like abortion, or war, or economics. The facts just seem obvious to them. Unless you can see why the other side believes the way they do, though, you can't do well arguing against it.
Reply #33 Top

I'm a liberal that is becoming more consertive and I still don't understand what is being argued here. From what I've taken from your article and the comments I tend to think the following things and I wonder what you think about it.

Nothing is really being argued here.  It is an hypothesis forwarded by someone kind of like yourself.  That because most are liberals in youth, the conservatives have to hone their skills at an earlier age.

Liberals are often idealists.
One of those ideals is to accept others even when they disagree or don't make any sense.
Conservatives make better arguments.
Conservatives are willing to not accept others only on a logical basis. A basis that they have agreed with others on... so it is a bandwagon of sorts.
Liberals often make stupid statements that are based on emotions and not on fact. Liberals feel, while conservatives are logical.

yes Liberals are idealist.  But no, they do not accept.  That is what Rosenblum is saying based  upon his life experience.  When confronted with opposition,they tend to ostracize.

However, I think that many people that become conservatives become so based on financial reasons, not because they lose their ideals of their youth.

No. that is the myth the liberals are trying to portray.  ConservaTism is a realization that the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.  They see that if it is not working, look for another road.  yet once a road is built, liberals will never let it be rebuilt or turned.  In many ways, the names are exact opposites of the dictionary definitions.

What do you guys think? Are you all republicans and is liberalism something that dies as you get older, bc I sure hope not!!! I want to remain an idealist, even if every now and then I sound like a child.

The ideal of liberalism never dies.  What happens is as you see failure after failure you look for new solutions.  But when one side decries their pet projects, it is hard to change things based upon past failures.

My gosh! You're right. He IS a racist Nazi! You have swayed me. How could I align myself with a Nazi?

Sadly, that tactic really works. All too well.

it only works for the ones that cannot reason or want to debate.

 

Also, I think the tactic of religion being used to sway politics works all too well also!!!
How many people in this country vote based on morals and when they say morals they mean, homosexual issues and abortion issues. SCARY that we are perhaps at war with Iraq ight now so that in the future homosexuals won't be able to marry and women will have to have those babies, no matter what the circumstance.

You have the cart before the horse. Religion is not working because of the right, it was there before  it.  And will be after it.  They have no party really.  They cling to what is closest to their ideal.  they do not lead the right, but they do follow it as it is closest.

Reply #34 Top

The facts just seem obvious to them. Unless you can see why the other side believes the way they do, though, you can't do well arguing against it.

That is exactly what Rosenblum was saying as well. Is that your real name?

Reply #35 Top

They dropped the ball on some of it, but at least it was a vision, and gave people a reason to support change.
You call the contract a vision! It was a cunning pragmatism to rollback America's gains.

Most older people that I know have declared their more youthful days to be extremely 'liberal' and have noted an increased turn to 'conservativism' as they've grown older.
As a rule it is just the opposite on the Supreme Court--most start out conservative and mellow into liberalism.

Reply #36 Top

It's easier to be a liberal. All you have to do is care about things deeply. It requires considerably more thought to have to take the "Bad guy" position on many issues.
Bad Guy, I feel your pain.

Liberals tend to use inflammatory rhetoric instead of reasoned logic in their disagreements.  We have all been invited to share in the 'debates' of recent years, where the conservatives are going to starve the children, ban blacks to the back of the bus, and kick old people out into the cold streets.  None of these charges have any basis in fact, but they make for good 30 second sound bites, and so the liberals use them with a regularity that makes ex-lax look tame in comparison. 

Yeah, right, Murtha is a coward, anyone for withdrawal is automatically a cut and run deserter, not waiting around for the mushroom cloud, Iraqi oil will pay for war's expenditures, economy is good when the low wages and excessive consumer debt are factored out... 

Reply #37 Top
As a rule it is just the opposite on the Supreme Court--most start out conservative and mellow into liberalism.

You called that! I should have mentioned such a major exception. I fully agree and expect zero argument from anyone on that point.

Good job Steve!
Reply #38 Top

Yeah, right, Murtha is a coward, anyone for withdrawal is automatically a cut and run deserter, not waiting around for the mushroom cloud, Iraqi oil will pay for war's expenditures, economy is good when the low wages and excessive consumer debt are factored out...

This is an example of taking statements out of context and using them to put together a dishonest representation of facts.

Reply #39 Top
This is an example of taking statements out of context and using them to put together a dishonest representation of facts.


I'm a bad guy.
Reply #40 Top
even tho you'll find no syllogisms here, the linked content goes a long way toward yanking the rug right out from under drguy's rather opinionated premise.

clearly neither side lives up (or down) to the stereotypes presented so far. Link

scroll down til you see the lil tv set overlay and click on the > button .
Reply #41 Top
yup, it starts out with bill buckley praising the surpreme court's wisdom.

what majestic voices. both of em sound like posterkids for articulate finesse.

well, til they get to this part:

Vidal: "the only pro or crypto-Nazi here is yourself."

Buckley: "Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered

(if you can't get the player on that page to work, feel free to check out this flash version...should work for everyone Link).
Reply #42 Top

You call the contract a vision! It was a cunning pragmatism to rollback America's gains.

Name one of the 10 planks of the Contract that rolled back anything.

As a rule it is just the opposite on the Supreme Court--most start out conservative and mellow into liberalism.

That is all too true.

Reply #43 Top

Yeah, right, Murtha is a coward, anyone for withdrawal is automatically a cut and run deserter, not waiting around for the mushroom cloud, Iraqi oil will pay for war's expenditures, economy is good when the low wages and excessive consumer debt are factored out...

Only one called Murtha a coward and later recanted.  No one is calling anyone a deserter, but yes, they are calling for cut and run, so what is the bad deal with stating the truth from their own lips?  And the Economy will never be good by the standards you want to impose.  Show me statistics where debt and wages are significantly different 10 years ago than from today.

Reply #44 Top

You called that! I should have mentioned such a major exception. I fully agree and expect zero argument from anyone on that point.

Hard to argue with history.

Reply #45 Top

I'm a bad guy.

No, just a sound bite guy.  Democrats were railing about being called unpatriotic 2 years ago, yet the only time that word was used was when it came from their lips.

Reply #46 Top

even tho you'll find no syllogisms here, the linked content goes a long way toward yanking the rug right out from under drguy's rather opinionated premise.

ONe can always find exceptions, and I admitted that.  So your link is hardly refutation, or even on topic.  If you try hard enough, I am sure you can find many more exceptions as well.

And for the record, it is Jonathan Rosenblum's premise, and my opinion that he is right.

Reply #47 Top

Vidal: "the only pro or crypto-Nazi here is yourself."

Buckley: "Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered

Well, that does prove one point of mine.  The first to start the name calling, was the liberal.

Reply #48 Top
OMG, that exchange never gets any less funny...
Reply #49 Top

[...] until you realize that the funding will be taken from the pockets of wage earners who worked to help themselves,


That's not the only thing.

It's also easier to be "against war" than it is to find a solution that stops Saddam from murdering Shi'ites and Kurds.

It's easier to be "for Palestine" than it is to guarantee that the Arabs won't kill all the Jews if given the chance again.

It's easier to call for moderation than to make murderers angry at you.

It's easier to call for a diplomatic solution than to maintain and train an excellent army.

It's easier to call for free AIDS medicines for poor people than it is to fund development of such medicines.

It's easier to call your opponents "fascists" than it is not to take the same position as David Duke towards Arab nationalism.

It's easier to call a terrorist a "freedom fighter" than it is to become one of his targets (although they still will become targets).

And finally, and this is one point where I can agree, it is easier to be against Bush than it is to support Kerry.
Reply #50 Top

And finally, and this is one point where I can agree, it is easier to be against Bush than it is to support Kerry.

Basically, it is easy to be a democrat these days, since they are against everything, and for nothing.