By Michael Callaway
November 4, 2008
One thing I have observed during this Presidential election and by blogging in general is that there are people who are simply too crazy to debate. Now, I do not care if you are religious or not, if you are Conservative or Liberal, or if you believe global warming is man made or part of a natural cycle. What I like to see is someone who can articulate why they believe what they believe and will not get angry if you challenge them. I would rather have a fierce debate with someone I disagree with who is rational then talk with someone who agrees with me but is irrational.
No matter what your views are, it is possible that you or someone you know is simply too crazy to debate. Now, I do not expect that everyone should be an expert on all things that they believe; there are some things that I know to be true that I can not prove. I also feel like people can become overwhelmed with facts and statistics that it blinds them to the obvious. As Winston Churchill famously said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.
What I want to look at is how you can know if the person that you are talking with or perhaps even you are too crazy to debate. These rules will help you steer clear of unproductive debate and help you focus your own arguments.
Crazy Fact One: Those that oppose your view are not just wrong, they are evil
When the “E” word makes its way into the discussion, I know that this is about to go no where fast. I did not vote for Obama not because I think he is evil, I did not vote for him because historically big government has not been able to solve the kinds of problems that we face. I do not believe that Obama or anyone in the Democrat party wants evil for America, they are trying to solve a problem to the best of their ability.
This is also true for Republicans, when people say that they only care about the wealthy that is an over exaggeration. As Republicans we believe that if you try to stifle the job creating sector of our economy to “spread the wealth around” that it winds up hurting everyone. Only time will tell which group is right, but I can confidentially say that neither group wants to bring harm to the American population.
Crazy Fact Two: Only those that follow your view know “the truth”
More good people will fall into this category then the first, you can have a little bit of crazy fact two and not be crazy. But, too much of crazy fact two and you will be branded, too crazy to debate. This tends to come up most with people who believe in vast conspiracies. One of the tell tale signs that you have fallen victim to this world view is if you believe that everyone is out to get you. Generally speaking, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. If you are putting together groups of people who would naturally hate each other somehow working behind close doors then it possible that you are affected by crazy fact two.
Another way that you can know that you are victim of crazy fact two is if it seems like everyone one personally meet seems to agree with you. This is particularly difficult because it may reinforce the validity of your claims, however, the reason that they are agreeing with you is because they have to come to the conclusion that you are too crazy to debate and that is easier to say yes and then walk away.
Crazy Fact Three: Heavy reliance on “secret facts”
Michael Moore is a prime example of this, if George Bush was the type of tyrant that Moore describes then he would dead. Let me ask you a question, where were the Michael Moore’s when Hitler or Stalin where running their government? I highly doubt that Michael Moore has the moral courage it takes to really stand up to tyranny, if he came face to face with that kind of evil he would probably wobble to the nearest donut shop and eat himself into a diabetic coma.
Chances are, if the information was really secret you would not know it unless you have a job at the CIA, FBI, or NSA. If it is on the “Internet” and you have not checked it out on snopes.com then do not quote it or forward it until you do. Nothing screams out “Too Crazy to Debate” like quoting secret facts that are wrong.
Now, if you see that a person or you yourself have fallen victim to any one of these three traits or maybe all three of them, then it is quite possible that you are too crazy to debate.
© 2008, Michael Callaway. All rights reserved.
Similar Posts:
- It’s Alive! The GOP is ALIVE!
- Surprise VP Pick for McCain
- Vote for Bob: The Speech
- Give Obama a Chance on Thursday
- You Want Some GOP, Yeah You Know Me!
Crazy Fact Four: They resort to personal attacks when “debating” instead of sticking to facts. For example: Stating that, in the face of evil, “…Michael Moore would probably wobble to the nearest donut shop and eat himself into a diabetic comma….”
Although I do wonder what makes a diabetic comma different than a regular comma. I wasn’t aware that punctuation could be diabetic.
Now I would agree that an over use of personal attacks can be a sign that the person is too crazy to debate. Someone who only uses personal attacks does this because they have no facts. However, personal attacks are effective and are used all the time. I doubt that anyone would say that either McCain or Obama are too crazy to debate and they used personal attacks.
Michael Moore does not use facts, he uses exaggeration and personal attacks. To fight his propaganda, personally attacks are appropriate and relevant. I would also add crazy fact number five: over attention to details.
RE: #5
But you see, if a person in a debate can’t effectively communicate, how can I trust that the facts they’re delivering are accurate?
There’s also a difference between an attack ad from a politician, and name calling. McCain attacking Obama by calling him out on questionable relationships with people in his past is perfectly acceptable. He was essentially asking Obama to clarify said relationships. Making the leap that Michael Moore would go to a donut shop & eat has no basis in fact, unless you personally happen to know that he likes to eat donuts.
I’ll give Michael the nod for poetic license, but in theory I agree with Monogodo’s last statement. However, in this instance, I took Callaway’s statement about the donut shop as a dramatic example of the character differences he sees between a President who won’t back down to anyone and a film director whose actions aren’t held up to the same level of bipartisan scrutiny.