For those of you who happen to drop by here from time to time (I know you’re out there, cause I keep hearing the back door to the ‘puter slamming in the middle of the night.) You probably have noticed the many fine people who have their home on the net listed on the left hand side of this bit of fluff.
A lady who has always been a most welcome read, and rich source of food for (well reasoned) thought Kim’s “real wife”, the charming Connie DuToit, has turned her keen mind towards something which has been glaringly apparent (and none the less, ignored). We (across the board, but particularly more so on the “progressive” side of the street) have quite forgotten either how to, or perhaps closer to the truth, what constitutes a proper “debate”.
Back in “the olden days” ™ when civics was at least passingly taught in school, the ground rules for (a) debate were rather clear and concise. One debates by presenting some selected thought or idea, usually given as a (declarative) statement. At this point some one or some group will provide factual evidence in backing (or not) said statement. Assuming there is an opposing view(s). persons supporting said view will, in turn, provide a counter point, again backed by factual evidence. This continues on until further evidence to support (and/or disprove) is exhausted, or the body of evidence is so great on one side as to provide a decisive conclusion one way or the other.
Be it a radio or tv “talk show”, the travesty currently foisted upon us otherwise known as “Political Debates”, or discourse across the interweb, there has been frightfully little honest debating, and far more goal post moving (and the majority of said moving being done by agenda driven useful progressive idiots of all stripes) then should ever have been put up with in a so called civil (and or well educated/informed) society.
However, Connie in her comment section to the above linked post, provides the best answer to “Goalposts on coasters”.
“WE have to call them on it. If they move the goal posts after our last point is made, then we have to refuse to answer until they concede they lost the last point. If they don’t, then they aren’t arguing in good faith, and that should be pointed out to the peanut gallery.
Be bold and judicious in the use of “Until you concede that you lost the last point and your data was wrong, I refuse to consider additional issues. Do you concede the last point?” ”
And say that until they agree or give up. You can add “…and if you don’t concede that you lost the point or bring new evidence so your point can be reconsidered, then I can only assume that you are arguing in bad faith and are engaging in propaganda.”
Source: Connie Du Toit
In short, turn out the lights, the party’s over!!! Well said, madam, well said!