Many people do not truly know how to debate, they do know how to be mean and argue. The unfortunate result of is is that when someone tries to legitimately debate politics, the methods of their responses will typically first lead into attacking the character of their opponent instead of addressing the ideas presented. The result is name calling and retorts which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic presented. For example, if you dont agree with me on Global Cooling (again, example), then youre an idiot and a conspiracy nut and brainwashed, stupid, uneducated, unwilling to acknowledge the facts, bullheaded, loon, kook, your information comes from people with biased opinions, etc. All of these types of attacks undermine the credibility of the individual, but again, do not address the idea. This leads to some very bad outcomes. Monkey see, monkey do. These types of arguments when heard by the supporters adopt the same tactics since it casts the illusion they are legitimately winning the debate. They are not. All they are doing is Mass Confirmation Bias. He said youre a slut so you must be a slut, then they resort to parroting and repeating what theyve heard. There is a bit of that around here, but I think a lot less than in other places. Many of these tactics are picked up from the MSM by Ambush Journalism. People like Bill O'Reilly win their arguments by talking louder, insulting, and cutting off any guests that dont agree with the opinion presented. This was quite obvious in an ABC interview by David Muir with Tim Cook, president of Apple in regards to "unlocking the iPhone". The questions that Muir presented were loaded and very misleading. Statements such as "the families of the victims", which insinuated that all the families fully supported the FBI, and that is entirely untrue. Several of the families of the victims have come out in support of Apple. This is a manipulation known as "Lying by Omission". The result of this creates the Loaded Question, where if Tim Cook answers in any way that doesnt suport a redirected value of safety over privacy, then Tim Cook looks like an asshole to the viewers.
One of the key components of Propaganda is that it has to be short enough to be repeatable by idiots. What youre really arguing with isnt an individual, but a series of responses that exist in the minds of those in the arguments. Its like arguing with someone that is so religious that it takes on an unhealthy mental state that god doesnt exist, to which they will respond "god does exist because the Bible says so". It doesnt matter of god exists or not, the problem Im trying to point out is the method of response is not a conclusion that was drawn by the person that made the statement. They are repeating what they heard. And just so I dont offend the religious people here, I'll present the opposite side of the coin. Argue with an atheist that god does exist and a conditioned response would be "prove it". And again, it isnt because they drew their own conclusion, the phrase "prove it" is a response that they have already heard and agree with. Sadly, it shows that when people argue instead of having meaningful debates, very few original ideas are drawn, as most of the arguments have been preconcluded, which leads to the viral nature of propaganda. If propaganda was not effective, it wouldnt be used.
There are methods that a person can use to win pretty much any argument, but none of the are exactly what I would deem as moral.
