“Debating”

I think I was at one time notorious in some circles for my debating style.  I call it the scalpel and cudgel approach.  I make factual, logically consistent, relevant arguments, then I hit them on the head with a personal attack.

I have almost entirely given that up, but find myself engaging with someone who just won’t stop, who I am suspecting has a more than superficial interest in the topic, that of 9/11 Truth.  I think he is a paid or volunteer propagandist.  Why, I don’t know.

But I wanted to comment that I think I understand why I developed that strategy.  The Left’s basic approach is to be annoying, to deal in personal attacks, and overall to wear you down such that you do some combination of lose your cool–so they can portray you as irrational and anger-prone–and simply stop engaging.

The only way, emotionally, I ever found to deal with that was to stay in the discussion on the level of reason that mattered, but to trade punch for punch, low blow for low blow, so I did not feel a sense of helpless rage.  I wasn’t helpless.  And I always remained on topic, and always offered rational, fact based arguments, presented as articulately and as simply as I could.

And I will say that this strategy is important for anyone who is going to go 15 rounds with professional agitators, liars, and propagandists.  Donald Trump may lose popularity, he may not be even a remotely good ideas as President, but he will not run out of energy.  He is giving more than he is taking.  That, in my view, is psychologically important.