As a follow up to my post How To Tell When A Liberal Concedes An Argument and by popular request, I am posting a page you may reference in an effort to “Green” up some of the liberal blogs.
In the aforementioned post, I detailed the major tactics used by liberals to attempt to salvage a lost argument. These are ALL diversionary tactics and take many forms, all designed to change the subject and attack you for daring to argue with their illogical and emotional ideology.
So, rather than waste all those electrons posting the same diversion attempts over and over, all you need to do when the tactics appear, which is normally in their first response, is post the line:
Liberal Dittos: Waive the reading, reject the tactic
And include a link to this page.
Please dispense with the diversionary tactics and just answer the question posted.
1. Rush Limbaugh, or whatever childish, schoolyard alteration of his name you use is irrelevant and rejected.
2. My personal life and family tree has no relevance here and your attempted diversion is rejected.
3. You can log on under as many fake names as you wish and pretend your viewpoint is widely supported by other posters, but until you address the premise of this debate/argument, that is also rejected.
4. The “facts” you posted from liberal sources are nothing more than an opinion with liberal spin and do not support the raw data and actual facts I have posted. It does not matter how many liberal sites you quote, the data used by them is not correct and they are not an accurate reflection of the facts and are rejected.
5. Maligning the source of my data does not make the data itself incorrect. If you believe my data is incorrect, put forth an argument supporting that. Without that supporting argument, my data stands as accurate and your diversionary tactic is rejected.
6. Calling me names does not change my argument. This tactic is rejected.
7. My spelling has no reflection on my argument unless you are unable to determine what I am saying. Any division for spelling short of that mark is rejected.
8. If I give you some insight as to my specialized knowledge of the subject at hand, your failure to “believe” me is irrelevant to the argument and is rejected.
9. The fact that I refuse to give you my real name and address does not change the facts. If I post anonymously, I am not a “chicken” or a “coward”, I am simply being prudent. Your aspersions are irrelevant and are rejected.
10. On the outside chance you “call me out” to meet you and fight it out, you automatically agree that you are unable to refute my argument. And even though I know you would not show, and if you did, likely would require far more medical attention that I would, I do not need to seek victory using such a barbaric “alternate” method as I have already won. Your “call out” is rejected.
With that said, either stick to the facts and put forth a proper, fact supported argument, or admit defeat and go away.