PDA

View Full Version : Debate help: how should I answer?




techie06
09-29-2012, 07:10 AM
I have a lot of Obama supporting friends on Facebook, and every time I post a picture that supports free markets, libertarian ideas, or Ron Paul, my friend Tony HAS to reply and show that I'm wrong, but I want to support my side (even though I'm not a good debater). Here's our latest conversation about how there is really no differences between Romney and Obama:

Tony:
I'm trying to decide whether I want to call this out for being absurdly reductive or for being wrong.

[coin flip]

We'll go with absurdly reductive! They forgot to call them both out for being human males, citizens of the United States, English speakers, educated, and politically active. All of those things are true, too, and a way of describing the sameness of Obama and Romney, without ever weighing their fundamental philosophical differences.

Me:
The point of this is to show that there are no fundamental philosophical differences between the two. If you research Obama and Romney's actions (not what they say, but what they actually do) on each of the above topics, you'll find that they are the same. Social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, are part of the branding for them. Do you want your liberty-destroying president to be for gay marriage or against? Pro-life or pro-choice? Either way, less freedom, more government, and economic disaster on the horizon.

Tony:
It may surprise you to learn that I have done my research, and can still enumerate the philosophical differences between the two, but that is maybe hinging on a point you make: you can't evaluate Romney based on his actions because he has disavowed most of his more moderate policies in favor of a far right stance, and even that is suspect, as there are so many direct contradictions within the framework of his own political narrative. Obama, on the other hand, can make the not-entirely-incorrect claim that a number of his key policy initiatives have been delayed by obstructionist Republicans in Congress.

I also feel the need to point out the inherent contradiction in your own argument: the economy was ruined because of a lack of government regulation of financial markets, and the recovery has been stalled by a lack of government stimulus according to Keynesian economic theory, which despite the standard libertarian talking point on the subject has a demonstrable history of success. How is "more freedom," which is a horribly imprecise term and ought not to be used for that purpose, going to solve a problem that was caused by a lack of government regulation?

I am, of course, completely confused with your devaluation of a social issue that effects a significant minority of our population's own civil rights. How can you trivialize the founding principles of our government in a discourse on freedom?

I suppose if you must reduce all of the philosophical differences to such imprecise language, yes, Obama and Romney are exactly the same, but at that level they are precisely the same as every other politician. Are you suggesting we burn the Constitution and live by lex talonis instead of being governed?

How do I best respond?

Is there any debate tips or tricks you guys can give me?

Thanks.:)

willwash
09-29-2012, 07:30 AM
I have a lot of Obama supporting friends on Facebook, and every time I post a picture that supports free markets, libertarian ideas, or Ron Paul, my friend Tony HAS to reply and show that I'm wrong, but I want to support my side (even though I'm not a good debater). Here's our latest conversation about how there is really no differences between Romney and Obama:

Tony:

Me:

Tony:

How do I best respond?

Is there any debate tips or tricks you guys can give me?

Thanks.:)

As you as a liberty supporter know, neither of them is asking the essential questions:

Do we need to be involved in foreign wars? International interventions?
No...they both support every ounce of our interventionist philosophy over the past 20 years

Do we NEED to be mandating a one size fits all health insurance plan for everyone?
No...Obama pushed Obamacare on the whole country...Romney INVENTED Obamacare, though now somehow he "opposes" it.

Is Social Security stable or even a good thing in general principle?
Both candidates believe that to raise this question is tantamoutn to political suicide and you will NEVER hear even the debate under either of them
Same for Medicare BTW

Here's a list of questions to ask Tony:
1) will EITHER candidate commit to ending foreign aid, which breeds anti-American contempt, wastes our money on unconstitutional expenditures, and ultimately results in a higher probability of terrorist attack?

2) Will EITHER candidate acknowledge the truth about social security, viz, that it is a bankrupt ponzi scheme that survives only because of the coercive power of government to force all citizens to participate?

3) Will either candidate agree to BOTH of the following: 1) states should be permitted to pursue their OWN policies with regard to medical marijuana (and ALL drug laws, even legalized recreational use), and 2) the right to bear arms has no caveats, was not intended to protect hunters, and quite specifically was intended as a last failsafe against federal encroachment so that an armed citizenry would have the means to overthrow said tyrannical government?

4) Will either candidate agree that the federal government has routinely exceeded its bounds, SPECIFICALLY with reference to the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, Obamacare, any unbalanced federal budget EVER, the Federal Reserve's printing of money despite a quite specific constitutional provision that only Congress has this power?

Both candidates would score zero out of four, and Tony knows it.

acptulsa
09-29-2012, 07:41 AM
techie, the best way in my opinion to handle the Tonys of the world is to concede their point and support it. Most particularly because this tickles the audience to this debate and wins them over to your side. This is important because Tony is most likely incorrigible--and if he isn't, he sure isn't going to convert to reason until after he stops getting rewarded for supporting bull.

So...:

You're right, Tony. They are different. For example, Romney promotes war openly. Obama promotes peace openly on the campaign trail, then flip flops once he's in office. That is quite a difference. Meanwhile, Obama promotes forced health care openly. Romney speaks out against forced health care openly on the campaign trail, then flip flops once he's in office. Romney openly supports corporations, and uses Bain to save companies like Monsanto. Obama speaks out against corporations on the campaign trail, then appoints an ex-Monsanto CEO as his Secretary of Agriculture. Obama supports big government programs, no matter how corrupt and incompetent they are. Romney condemns big, corrupt government projects on the campaign trail, then conducts projects like Boston's Big Dig and its deadly falling ceiling tiles.

You could go on and on with this, given a little research. But this should be enough by itself to swing the momentum your way. Give him hell!

CaptUSA
09-29-2012, 07:47 AM
The really important issues of the day:

Overspending of the federal government - They both want to increase spending (just at moderately different levels and to give it to their own special interests)
Foreign wars - their speeches may be different on the margins, but they both support the same policies
Federal Reserve - exactly the same
Civil rights - Obama talks a better game, but kills American citizens, continues the war on drugs, and increases the power of the police state.

So yeah, if your friend wants to talk about differences on the margins or wants to worry about the silly little fake issues the press worries about, then he can find a difference. If he's really concerned about big things, it doesn't matter which one of these guys is President, they are the same.

On a side note, he has totally bought into Keynesian economics. That's his problem. Until he realizes that Keynesian economics has been a complete failure and NOT a success, he won't get it. You may be wasting your time. Keynesians think you stimulate the economy by borrowing wealth from the future. But we are in the the future now. All those generations that he thinks succeeded, did so because they were borrowing from us. And now he thinks we should just borrow more from our great grandchildren. Guess what? It doesn't work anymore. The game is over.

acptulsa
10-02-2012, 06:19 AM
How did this thing come out, techie?

tangent4ronpaul
10-02-2012, 06:29 AM
Just say this:

50% of the public belong to the welfare class and are leaches on those that work or have wealth. How is that going to work when 90% of the population are leaches - like you?

Can you say financial collapse? - I thought you could...

-t

Philhelm
10-02-2012, 07:25 AM
This is why liberty must be taken, not begged for.