Liberals use name calling in order to discredit an argument they can't counter
Think about it.
Who are the "racists," the "bigots," the "greedy?"
Conservatives.
Who labels them as such?
The other side.
Who's the other side?
Liberals.
Q.E.D.
Yes they do, all the time
Side Score: 11
|
 |
Wait..., what..., no!
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
0
points
-2
points
1
point
1
point
|
5
points
Why on earth do we keep getting these broad generalization over and over again. I don't care which side you are attacking, generalizations that deamonize your opponents are not helpful, and are in fact simple minded. Whether it's liberals or conservatives or independants doesn't matter. What's ironic is this debate is essentially complaining about name calling by labeling an entire group in a certain way: that's essentially name calling! Joe, I have debated with you numerous times and I'm pretty sure I can't think of a gngle case where I name called in replacement for an argument. So according to you I must not be a liberal... does that sound right? Side: The Debate is an example of name calling
Why on earth do we keep getting these broad generalization over and over again. There is no broad generalization. Why? There is no reason to think Joe is thinking of all, most, or all but a few liberals. He did not affirm: a) All liberals… b) Most liberals… c) All or most female liberals… d) All of most male liberals… e) Blah,blah,blah. The term ‘liberals’ only allows us to infer: at least two liberals… To claim it is a broad generalization is to fall prey to our assumed and imputed distribution of the subject, not his. So, we might care to ask him of the number of liberals he speaks of. Albeit, the truth of the matter is that there are many liberals and conservatives who resort to name-calling. And yet if it is found that most of these groups do resort to that tactic, the real question would then be: Why is it broadly true that both liberals and conservatives resort to name-calling? Side: Yes they do, all the time
2
points
Yes we can get into a debate about semantics, but if you ask him I can guarentee that he at the very least meant most liberals, and wasn't making a debate about why specifically some liberals resort to name calling. Generalizing groups of people without much basis does tend to annoy me regardless of the side it's coming from, and I do think that it is a problem on both sides and would firmly stand against anyone who tries to make these generalizations, even if I do not fall into the catagory of generalization. In this case the debate was more an attack on liberals than an actual debate, however, it was also mostly in jest because it was made by Joe, so don't think that I took it too seriously. As for your question: because people are lazy. It's easier to assume that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant, or racist or uneducated or out of touch, than trying to consider that they may have a different world view than you, and that their view could be as valid as yours. This is the same with most generalizations, and is why I am so strongly against them. Side: Wait..., what..., no!
1
point
I literally don't recall you ever winning a debate about politics in all your millions of points joe. Do you have specific examples of a liberal calling you a name after you somehow magically proved one of your incoherent and generally self-conflicting points? Or are you just... generalizing liberals? Side: Wait..., what..., no!
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
