Copyright2014

TruthRevolt

c/o

DavidHorowitzFreedomCenter

POBOX55089

ShermanOaks,CA91499-1964

[e-mail]

www.TruthRevolt.org

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

eBookscreatedby

www.ebookconversion.com

HowToDestroyLeftistsInDebate

ByBenShapiro

HowTheLeftWinsArguments

Allthatmattersisvictory.

That’samessagethatseemstohavebeenlostamongconservatives,whoareconstantlyfocusedon

the virtue of their message, the intellectual honesty of their cause, and the frustration of having
nobodycareabouteither.

Butit’sbecauseconservativesdon’tthinkabouthowtowinthattheyconstantlylose.

Take,forexample,theelectionof2012.

Conservatives lost the 2012 election for one blatantly obvious reason. It wasn’t just their

technologywasnogood,thoughtheObamacampaigndidhaveanobvioustechnologicaladvantage.
Itwasn’tjustthatconservativesdidapoorjobwiththemedia--althoughtheydid.

Thereasonthatconservativeslostthe2012electionwasgarishlysimple:mostpeopleinAmerica

don’tfollowpoliticsthatclosely.Whattheyseeaboutthevariouscandidatesarewhatthecandidates
sayabouteachother,andwhatthemediasayaboutthecandidates.

So,let’sassumeforamomentthatyou’reatypicalAmericanvoter:youcaremoreaboutMiley

Cyrus twerking on the Video Music Awards than you do about the vagaries of Obamacare. Let’s
assumeallyou’vereallyseenabouttheelectionsisthecoverageinthemainstreampressandwhatthe
candidatessaidabouteachotherduringthedebates.

Whatexactlydidthecandidatessayabouteachotherduringthedebates?

Here’swhatpresidentialcandidateMittRomneysaidaboutBarackObama:BarackObamaisnota

verygoodPresident.HesaidBarackObamadoesn’tdoaverygoodjobontheeconomy;hesaidthat
Obama’sforeignpolicyhasalotofholesinit;hesaidObamahasdoneaprettypoorjobacrossthe
boardofworkinginbipartisanfashion.But,Romneyadded,Obama’sagoodguy.He’sagoodfamily
man, a good husband, a man who believes in the basic principles espoused by the Declaration of
IndependenceandtheConstitution.Heisnotsomeoneyoushouldbeafraidofinanyway.Essentially,
Romney’scampaignsloganwasthis:“Obama:GoodGuy,BadPresident.”

And here’s what Barack Obama and his surrogates said about Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney is the

worstguysinceMussolini.MittRomneyistheguywhostrapsdogstothetopofcars.MittRomneyis
thekindofguywhowantsto“puty’allbackinchains.”MittRomneyisleadinga“waronwomen”
and, in fact, has compiled a binder full of women that he can then use to prosecute his war. Mitt

Romneyisthetypeofguywhowouldspecificallyfireanemployeesothatfiveyearslaterhiswife
woulddieofcancerthankstolackofhealthinsurance.MittRomneywouldtakehismoneyandputit
in an overseas bank account specifically to deprive the American people of money. The Obama
campaignslogan:“Romney:Rich,Sexist,RacistJackass.”

Now, back to the American voter. Let’s assume you’ve been watching this messaging battle, and

nowyouhavetwochoices:BarackObama,NotaVeryGoodPresidentvs.MittRomney,TheWorst
GuyEver.Whoareyougoingtovotefor?Mostpeoplewouldpick“niceguy,badpolitician”over
Mussolini.Andtheydid.

The exit polls showed that on the major issues of the day, Americans agreed with Mitt Romney.

They didn’t like Obama’s record on jobs, the economy, Obamacare. But when it came to the key
question–whichcandidatecaresmoreaboutpeoplelikeme?–Romneygotblownout,81percentto
18percent.

Now,that’snotbecauseBarackObamaisawarmandfuzzyguy.EventhosewhosurroundBarack

Obama all day describe him as a cold fish. Obama is not someone who will bring over a bowl of
chickensoupwhenyouhavetheflu;he’snoteventheguywhowilldriveyoutotheairportwhenit
inconveniences him. Yet, somehow, he was considered the more empathetic of the two candidates.
Why?BecauseRomneywasperceivedassodarnmean.

Nowondertheleftseekstoavoidpoliticaldebateatallcosts.Whybother?Membersoftheleftare

not interested in having a debate about policy. They are not interested in debating what is right or
wrong for the country. They are interested in debating you personally. They are interested in
castigatingyou as a nasty human being because you happen to disagree. This is what makes leftists
leftists:anunearnedsenseofmoralsuperiorityoveryou.Andiftheycaninstillthatsenseofmoral
superiority in others by making you the bad guy, they will. People on the left are taught from
childhoodthattheyarebetterthanconservatives–itmakesthemfeelgoodtohateconservatives.And
thathatredisjustifiedbecause,afterall,conservativesarebigots.

This is why it’s so comfortable to be on the left: that unearned sense of moral superiority.

Unearned, because folks on the left haven’t done anything positive for decades. College students’
senseofmoralrighteousnessdoesn’tcomefromachievement–itcomesfrombelievingthatyouare
abadperson.Youarearacistandsexist;theyarenot.Thatmakesthemgood,eveniftheydon’tgive
charity, have never met a black person, stand for policies that impoverish minority communities
across the United States, and enable America-haters around the globe. It doesn’t matter that if they
pointedoutaKKKmembertoyou,you’drunacrossthelottoknockhimout;inorderforthemtobe
morally superior, you must be morally inferior. Calling you a racist and sexist, a bigot and a
homophobe,givesthemasenseofsatisfactionwiththeirstatusintheuniverse,eveniftheyneverhelp
asingleindividualhumanbeing.

This is a bully tactic. When someone calls you a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe because you

happen to disagree with them about tax policy or same-sex marriage or abortion, that’s bullying.
Whensomeoneslandersyoubecauseyouhappentodisagreewiththemaboutglobalwarmingorthe
government shutdown, that’s bullying. When someone labels you a bad human being because they
disagree with you, they are bullying you. They are attacking your character without justification.

That’snasty.Infact,itmakesthemnasty.

TheInstitutionalTakeover

TheleftistbullieshavetakenoverthemajorinstitutionsoftheUnitedStates.

Theuniversitysystemhasbeenmonopolizedbyagroupoffolkswhobelievethatit’snolonger

worthwhile debating the evidence on tax rates, or whether the Laffer curve is right, or whether
Keynesianpoliciesactuallypromoteeconomicgrowth.Theydon’twanttodebatethoseissues.What
they want to teach instead is that is you are personally ignorant, bigoted, corrupt, and mean if you
disagreewiththem.Theiropinionsarenotopinions;theyarefact.

Thisisthehallmarkofbeingstuckinsideabubble.Thepeoplewhooccupytheprofessoriatehave

nothadtoworkarealjob–ajobwithreal-worldconsequences--inover30years.They’velivedon
acampuswhereeveryoneagreeswiththem,convincingthemthattheirbeliefsareuniversally-held.
Anyonewhodisagreesisa“flatearther.”Anyonewhodisagreesisamonster.Youareamonster.

They used to call this Pauline Kael syndrome. Pauline Kael used to be a columnist for The New

Yorker. Back in 1972, writing about the George McGovern/Richard Nixon landslide election, she
famouslyobserved,“Iliveinaratherspecialworld.IonlyknowonepersonwhovotedforNixon.
WheretheyareIdon’tknow.They’reoutsidemyken.ButsometimeswhenI’minatheaterIcanfeel
them.”Shecouldfeeltheevilrollingoffthosepeople.

At the university level, this perspective is commonplace – and that leads to ideological

discrimination.Thatdiscriminationgenerallydoesn’tmanifestaspurposefullygivingconservatives
badgrades;mostprofessorstrytostayawayfromthat,anddonotattempttodestroypeopleinthe
classroom, except for a few not-that-rare exceptions. Professors will, however, grade conservative
perspectivesdownunconsciously,becausetheybelievethoseperspectivesarewrong,andthepeople
whoadvocateforthemarebad.That’swhywhenIwasincollege,Iwrotelikeacommunistonmy
tests -- thank God for blue books! I would put my student ID number on my blue books, and I was
now indistinguishable from a member of the Spartacus Club. I recommend this strategy for all
conservative students at liberal organizations and liberal universities: there’s no reason to sacrifice
yourgradesbecausetheprofessor ’sajerk.

This sort of bullying isn’t just present at the universities. It has taken over the media wholesale.

Forthemedia,allargumentsarecharacterarguments.Ifyoudisagreewiththemembersofthemedia
about something, you are a fundamentally bad human being. The same is eminently true in
Hollywood,wheremoralnarrativeistheheartofthebusiness.Hollywoodisincrediblycleverabout
pushingtheirnarrative.Theycreateasetofcharactersthatyoubelievein,likeandwanttohangout
with; you want to come back and hang out with those characters week after week after week. Then
Hollywood twists your newfound friends into exemplars of absolutely irresponsible behavior,
representativesofbehavioryoufindpersonallyunpalatable.Butyoulikethecharacter–andso,the
Hollywood emotional appeal goes, you’re supposed to like what he or she does. This is the
Hollywood argument same-sex marriage: you like certain characters, so if you don’t like their
behavior,it’sbecauseyou’remeanandnasty.ThisiswhatHollywooddoesbest.

IfyouwatchFriends,forexample,andyoudon’tthinkthatit’smoralforRacheltosleeparound

andhaveakidoutofwedlock–especiallygiventhatshe’sactuallyinlovewiththefatherofherchild
– then that’s because you’re intolerant. If you think that when Murphy Brown has a child out of
wedlock,it’swrongtopaintherasasaint,asDanQuaylepointedout–ifyousaythatMurphyBrown
pushedtheliethattherearenorealnegativelifeconsequencesforhavingababywithoutahusband--
, you are castigated as being a thickheaded bigot, as Quayle was. Now, twenty years later, Candice
Bergen,whoplayedMurphyBrown,admittedQuaylewasright–butatthetime,Quaylewasrunning
forre-election,andsohehadtobewrong.

The left no longer makes arguments about policies’ effectiveness. Their only argument is

characterassassination.

WhenToDebateaLeftist

Beforegettingtohowtodebatealeftist,thefirstquestiontoaskiswhydebatealeftistinthefirst

place.Noteveryfightisworthhaving.Youhavetopickyourfights;thereareonlysomanyhoursin
a day, and if you spend them battling with your hippie ex-roommate from Cal State Northridge on
Facebook,youwillregretthosespenthoursonyourdeathbed.

There are truly only three situations in which debating someone on the left is worthwhile. First,

youmust:yourgradedependsonit,oryourwaiterthreatenstospitinyourfoodunlessyoutellhim
why same-sex marriage is a detriment to Western civilization. Second, you found an honest leftist
actuallywillingtobeconvincedbysolidargumentation.Congratulations!Youfoundhim.Heactually
wantstositdownandhaveanevidence-basedconversationwithyou;youwanttohaveanevidenced
based conversation with him. Everything is just hunky dory! Then you ride off on your separate
unicorns.

Third,youshoulddebatealeftistifthereisanaudience.Thegoalofthedebatewillnotbetowin

over the leftist, or to convince him or her, or to be friends with him or her. That person already
disagrees with you, and they’re not going to be convinced by your words of wisdom and your
sparklingrhetoricalflourishes.Thegoalwillbetodestroytheleftistinaspublicawayasishumanly
possible.

Hereishowyougoaboutdoingjustthat.

TheElevenRulesforDebatingaLeftist

Rule#1:WalkTowardtheFire.ThisisaruleIlearnedfrommylatementorAndrewBreitbart.He

wasaveryclevertacticianwhounderstoodthefightatagutlevel:hegotthatpoliticsiswarfareby
othermeans,andthatyouhavetotreatitlikewar.

Andrewusedtosayyouhavetoembracethefight,walktowardthefire.Hewouldexplainthatyou

aregoingtogethitwiththeslingsandarrowsofoutrageousfortunenomatterwhichwayyouturn.
Youcantrytohidefromtheattacksoftheleft;youcanrunawayfromthem,attempttoignorethem,
pretendthatthelefthasreachedsomesortofquasi-consensusinwhichtheyliveandletlive.Thatwill

lastuntiltheprotestersareoutsideyourbusiness,thegovernmentregulatorsareoutsideyourhouse,
or the administrators are inside your child’s classroom. Then you’ll realize that while you were
willingtoletlive,theleftsimplywasn’t.

Thereisnodetente.Detentedoesnotexist.Nomatterhowniceorpoliteyouare,theywillcome

after you. Mitt Romney learned this the hard way. Mitt Romney is one of the most polite people to
everrunforPresident.Thatdidn’tstopMittRomneyfrombeingexcoriatedastheworld’smostworst
humanbeing.JohnMcCainisbestfriendswithpeoplelikeSenatorChuckSchumer(D-NY)--andit
did not matter one iota when it came time for McCain to run. McCain was called a radical right-
wingerandwaspaintedasacrazy,oldkooktothevastmajorityoftheAmericanpublic.

Theleftknowsthisiswar.Andtheyknowyouaretheenemy.Youwillbecastigated.Youwillget

punched.That’sthewayitwillgobecausethat’showtheleftwins:throughintimidationandcruelty.
Youhavetotakethepunch,youhavetobrushitoff.Youhavetobewillingtotakethepunch.

Rule#2:HitFirst.Don’ttakethepunchfirst.Hitfirst.Hithard.Hitwhereitcounts.MikeTyson

used to say, “Everybody has a plan ‘til they get punched in the mouth.” That’s exactly correct. But
throwingthefirstpunchrequiresgame-planning.Walkingthroughthedoor,youhaveoneshot–one!
–toputsomeonedownforthecountfromthebeginningofadebate.Ifdoneproperly,anydebateon
asingletopiccanbeoverwithinthefirst30seconds.

Thistakesresearch.Youhavetoknowyouropponent.Youhavetoknowwhathe’sgoingtosay,

whathisfavoritetacticsare,andwhathisdefaultpositionswillbe.Youneedtolearnyouropposition
inside-out.Ifyoucansparwithastand-inbeforeadebate,doit:there’sareasonthatbothRomneyand
Obama did this before their presidential debates. In most debates that aren’t presidential, your
opponent will likely take the debate lightly. There is no substitute for preparation. Know your
opponents’tendencies–particularlyifhehasatendencytolowerhishands.That’swhereyoupunch.

Rule#3:FrameYourOpponent. I have argued that the left’s entire playbook consists of a single

play:characterizingtheopposition.It’sincrediblyeffective.Andtheonlywaytogetbeyondcharacter
argumentsistoframeyouropponent–makeittoxicforyouropponenttosluryou.Then,hopefully,
youcanmovethedebatetomoresubstantiveterritory.

Thisisthevitalfirststep.Itistheonlyfirststep.Itisthereasonthattherightconsistentlylosesthe

blackandHispanicvote–notbecausetheright’spoliciesaresoabhorrenttoblacksandHispanics,
butbecauseblacksandHispanicshavebeentoldforgenerationsthatconservativeshatethem.

There is no way to convince someone that you don’t hate him or her. You can convince him or

her,however,thatyouroppositionisaliarandahater.Whenaleftistcallsaconservativeracist,the
conservative tendency is to defend yourself by explaining why you aren’t racist. This is a losing
battle.Infact,you’velosttheargumenttheminuteyouengageinit.Theproperresponsetoacharge
of racism is not, “I’m not a racist. Never have been. I have black friends, black bosses, black
employees.” You’ve already given away the store by dignifying the charge with a response. The
properresponsetoachargethatyoubeatyourwifeisnottoexplainthatyoudon’tbeatyourwifeand
are in fact an ardent feminist: it’s to point out that throwing around accusations without evidence
makes your opponent a piece of garbage. The truth is that your opponent, who labels you a racist

withoutevidence,istheactualracist:itishewhowatersdownthetermracismuntilitismeaningless
bylabelinganyargumentwithwhichhedisagreesracist.

No rational conversation is possible with someone who insists you are not worthy of debate. In

fact, if your opponent thinks you’re not worthy of debating, he isn’t worthy of debating. If your
opponent wants to enter a world in which we can have rational conversations about the costs and
benefitsofparticularpolicies,you’rehappytodothat.Ifnot,theconversationisover.Therewillbe
no conversation in which you call me a racist, and I explain why I’m not a racist. That’s a
conversationforidiots.

Now,there’sanotherimportantpointhere:don’twaitforyouropponenttocallyouaracistbefore

goingontheoffensive.You’veresearchedyouropponent;you’vegame-plannedhim.Youknowhe’s
goingtocallyouaracist,becausehealwayscallshisopponentsracist.

Sohithimfirstbypointingouthisvicioustactic.

This is what I did with CNN’s Piers Morgan when I debated with him on gun control. Piers

Morgan had made himself the face of the gun control movement in the aftermath of the horrific
Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, and he did it by bringing on folks from the right and then
suggesting that they were evil for disagreeing with him. Or, alternatively, he’d bring on kooks like
Alex Jones, wait for them to go berserk, and then suggest that all gun owners were berserk nuts
waiting to go off. When he had on Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, he called him an
“unbelievably stupid man” after Pratt pointed out gun control’s failure in municipalities across the
country.Hethenadded,“Youhaveabsolutelynocoherentargument.Youdon’tactuallygiveadamn
aboutthegunmurderrateinAmerica.”

Intheaftermathofthatconversation,IwroteacolumninwhichIsuggestedthatMorganhadbeen

“offtherailsfordaysinthewakeofthemassacreatSandyHook.”Morganinvitedmeontodiscuss
thecolumn.

Here’showtheconversationwent:

PIERSMORGAN,CNNHOST:Mynextguesthasstrongwordsforme.HesaysI’mofftherails
on guns in America. Ben Shapiro is editor-at-large at Breitbart.com and the author of Bullies:
HowtheLeft’sCultureofFearandIntimidationSilencesAmericans.So,whyamIofftherails,
Mr.Shapiro?

SHAPIRO: You know, honestly Piers, you have kind of been a bully on this issue, because what
youdo,andI’veseenitrepeatedlyonyourshow.Iwatchyourshow.AndI’veseenitrepeatedly.
Whatyoutendtodoisyoutendtodemonizepeoplewhodifferfromyoupoliticallybystandingon
thegravesofthechildrenofSandyHooksayingtheydon’tseemtocareenoughaboutthedead
kids.Iftheycaredmoreaboutthedeadkids,theywouldagreewithyouonpolicy.Ithinkwecan
have a rational, political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of
thesedifferentpolicies,butIdon’tthinkthatwhatweneedtodoisdemonizepeopleontheother
sideasbeingunfeelingaboutwhathappenedatSandyHook.

ItwasatthispointthatMorgan,inthewordsofBreitbart’sJohnNolte,clutchedathispearls.

MORGAN: How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there.
Howdareyou.

SHAPIRO:I’veseenyoudoitrepeatedly,Piers.

MORGAN:LikeIsay,howdareyou.

SHAPIRO: Well, I mean, you can keep saying that, but you’ve done it repeatedly. What you do,
and I’ve seen you do it on your program, is you keep saying to folks if they disagree with you
politically,thensomehowthisisaviolationofwhathappenedinSandyHook.

Lateronintheinterview,Pierswouldcomebacktothispoint,belittlingmepersonallybecausehe

disagreedwithmyargumentsonSecondAmendmentrights.Again,Ihammeredhomethepoint:Piers
wasaloudmouthandabully:

MORGAN:Doyouknowhowabsurdyousound?

SHAPIRO: Here’s where you go into the “absurd” and the bullying. “You’re absurd, you’re
stupid.”Iunderstand--

MORGAN:I’mnotbullying.

SHAPIRO:Ofcourseyouare.

MORGAN:I’mnottheonewhocameinhereandaccusedyouofstandingonthegravesofdead
children--

SHAPIRO:Becauseyou’retheonewhoisdoingthat.I’mpunchingbacktwiceashard.

MORGAN:That’swhatIcallbullying.

SHAPIRO: You know what I call it? Punching back twice as hard, in the words of President
Obama.

MORGAN:That’swhatIcallbullying.

SHAPIRO:Thisisastonishing.

MORGAN:What’sastonishing?

SHAPIRO:What’sastonishingaboutitisforweeksnow,youhavebeensayingthatanybodywho
disagrees with your position is absurd, idiotic, and doesn’t care about the dead kids in Sandy
Hook.AndthenwhenIsaythatit’sabullyingtactic,youturnaroundandthatsayI’mbullying

youforsayingthat.It’sabsurd.It’sridiculous.

It’simportanttodothis.Theleftdoesn’thaveaplaybook.Theyhaveaplay.Oneplay.Theplay:

you’re a jerk. they have a play. One play! The play is you’re nasty. Take that away from them, and
they have nothing. There is literally nothing Piers Morgan could say, because he had no facts or
evidenceathisdisposal–atleastnotfortheargumentshewasmaking.

WhenItookthattacticawayfromPiers,hewasessentiallyfinished.

The interview was a two-segment interview. During the break, Piers had one of his producers

wheel out a victim of a shooting. Undoubtedly, he was preparing to swivel the camera – I could
actuallyseethecameramanpreppingtodoso–andforcemetomakemypro-gunrightsarguments
tosomeonewhohadbeenwoundedinashooting.ButbecauseIhadalreadycalledouthisbullytactic,
thatgambitwasoffthetable.Theminutehepulledthatcynicalploy,Iwouldhavetoldhimthathewas
perfectlycomfortablenotonlystandingonthegravesofthechildrenofSandyHook,butstandingon
thewheelchairofashootingvictim.Iwouldhavesaid,“Whydoyouhavetousevictimstoillustrate
yourpoint?Whycan’tyoujustconvincemeonthebasisoftheevidencethatwhatyou’reproposing
istherightsolutionforAmerica?”

Sufficeittosay,Pierswasquiteunhappyduringthedebate.

Rule#4:Framethedebate.Theleftisexpertatframingdebates.Theyhavebuzzwordstheyuseto

directthedebatetowardunwinnablepositionsforyou.Theyaretolerant,diverse,fightersforsocial
justice;ifyouopposethem,bycontrast,youareintolerant,xenophobic,andinfavorofinjustice.

Now,allthesetermsare–tobepolite–acrock,ifconsideredasabsolutemoralvalues.Theleftis

wildly intolerant of religious people and conservatives; that’s why they’re interested in forcing
Christian bakers to cater to same-sex weddings. They are anti-intellectual diversity, particularly in
areasofAmericanlifeinwhichtheypredominate;that’swhytheystifleconservatismoncampusand
inthemedia.Andasforsocialjustice,ifsocialissupposedtobeopposedtoindividual,thensocial
justice is by definition unjust. The left’s use of magical buzzwords places you in a corner, against
supposeduniversalvaluesthataren’tuniversaloruniversallyheld.

It’s important that you neuter those buzzwords quickly, because otherwise you will be arguing

against nonsense terms that can be used against you. You can’t argue against empty terms. So don’t
accept the premises of their arguments, which are largely buzzword based. On same-sex marriage,
the question is not how same-sex marriage hurts your marriage – that’s a nonsensical and stupid
question,likeaskinghowenslavementofothershurtsyoupersonally.Thequestioniswhetherachild
needsamotherandafather.Thequestionisnotwhethertwopeoplewholoveeachothershouldbe
givenstatesanction–eventheleftrecognizesthatsuchadefinitionistoobroad,giventhatitwould
includeincestuousrelationships.Thequestioniswhymarriageshouldberedefined,andhowsame-
sexmarriagewillstrengthentheinstitution.

On gun control, I used this rule against Piers Morgan when I redefined the debate from why

Americansneedaparticulartypeofgun–asillyquestion,giventhatAmericansdon’tneedmanyof
the things we consider essential manifestations of freedom – and toward the question of how to

squaretheSecondAmendmentwithdemandsofpublicsafety.Tothatend,IhandedMorganacopyof
theConstitution.ItoldhimIwashappytodiscusstheevidenceonguncontrol,happytodiscussrisks
and rights and rewards of particular policies. But we had to bring the Constitution into the
conversation.“Iwouldreallyliketohearyourpolicyprescriptionsforwhatweshoulddoaboutguns
becauseyousayyourespectthesecondamendment.Youknow,Ibroughtthishereforyousoyoucan
readit.It’stheConstitution,”Itoldhim.ThepointwastoforceMorganintoanareainwhichhewas
uncomfortable. Morgan would later slam down that copy of the Constitution and call it “your little
book” – rejecting a universally-accepted framework for discussing gun control, and throwing it in
theAmericanpeople’sfaces.Justoverayearlater,Pierswasofftheair.

Thistactic–forcingthelefttodebatewithinframeworkstheydislike–isusefulonvirtuallyevery

front.Whenyou’rediscussingglobalwarming,forexample,theproperquestionisnotwhetherman
is causing global warming. The question is whether man can fix global warming – a question to
which the universally-acknowledged answer is essentially no, unless we are willing to revert to the
pre-industrial age. This is a more useful question, and it also avoids the left’s preferred line of
argument on global warming, which is a variation on their preferred line on gun control: “Global
warmingisman-made.Don’tagree?That’sbecauseyou’restupidandhateful.”Asageneralmatter,
the left’s favorite three lines of attack are (1) you’re stupid; (2) you’re mean; (3) you’re corrupt.
Sarah Palin is supposedly stupid; Mitt Romney is supposedly mean; Dick Cheney is supposedly
corrupt.Takeawaythoselinesofattackandwatchthediscomfortsetin.

Rule #5: Spot Inconsistencies in the Left’s Arguments. The left’s arguments are chock full of

inconsistencies. Internal inconsistencies – inconsistencies that are inherent to the left’s general
worldview.That’sbecauseveryfewpeopleontheleftwillacknowledgetheiractualagenda,whichis
quiteextreme.Leftistsprefertoarguehalf-measuresinwhichtheydon’ttrulybelieve.Forexample,
they say they want to ban assault weapons to stop gun murders. But that argument is silly, because
handgunsareusedtokillfarmorepeoplethanso-calledassaultweapons.Andyettheleftwon’targue
infavorofablanketgunban,becausetheyknowtheywilllose.

To take another example, with regard to healthcare, the left suggests that their entire goal is to

make healthcare available to everyone. But they don’t mandate that a certain percentage of the
population go to medical school. That’s because in order for government to guarantee a product’s
availability,thegovernmentmusteitherhireworkersorforceworkerstogetintoagivenindustry.
Thegovernmenthiringworkerswouldrequirepayingmoneyfordoctors–andtheleftarguesthat
doctorsalreadymaketoomuchmoney.Andtheleftwon’targueopenlyforwhattheywouldprefer:
forcingpeopletopracticemedicineforpatientsdeemedworthybythegovernment.Unlessyouare
willingtoforcepeopleusingthelawtogotomedicalschool,youcannothaveasuccessfuluniversal
healthcare system. That’s what they’re finding out in Britain, Canada, and Israel – all countries in
whichprivatemedicineisontherise,legallyorillegally,outsidegovernmentauspices.

Healthcareandguncontrolaren’ttheonlyexamples.Onsame-sexmarriage,theleftclaimsthat

the state has no business regulating someone’s private life…unless the left is simultaneously
proclaimingthatthestatemustsanctionsomeone’sprivateactivity.Onabortion,theleftsaysitisfor
choice,butignoresthatthebabyhasnochoice.

Therearealmostinvariablyunbridgeableinconsistenciesintheleft’spubliclystatedpositionsthat

areatwarwiththeiractualfundamentalprinciples.Yourgoalistomaketheleftadmitonceandfor
allwhattheybelieveaboutpolicybyexposingthoseinconsistencies.

Rule#6:ForceLeftiststoAnswerQuestions.ThisisreallyjustacorollaryofRule#4.Leftistsare

only comfortable when they are forcing you to answer questions. If they have to answer questions,
they begin to scratch their heads. The questions they prefer to ask are about your character; the
questionstheyprefernottoanswerareallofthem.Instead,theyliketododgeissuesinfavorofthose
characterarguments.

Ifyouforcealeftisttoanswerwhetherheorshewouldprefertogiveupmomordadinthename

ofpoliticalcorrectness–afterall,allfamiliesareequal,sowhatdifferencedoesitmake?–theywill
avoid. If you force a leftist to answer whether they would force churches to perform same-sex
marriages,theywillavoid.Ifyouforcealeftisttoanswerwhyweshouldallgiveupournicecars
whiletheChineseandRussianscontinuetodumptoxicwasteintotheatmosphere,theywillavoid.

Forcing the left to answer questions is often like trying to pin pudding to the wall – messy and

near-impossible.Butit’suncomfortableforthemtobeonthedefensive.

Rule#7:DoNotGetDistracted.Youmaynoticewhenarguingwithsomeoneontheleftthatevery

time you begin to make a point, that leftist begins shouting about George W. Bush. It’s like Leftist
Tourette’sSyndrome.“WhydidObamablowoutthebudget?”“BUUUUUUUSHHHH!!!!!”

Don’tbefooled.Youdon’tneedtofollowtheidioticrabbitdownintohisBushyrabbithole.The

sameholdstrueofsame-sexmarriage,whichleftistsbringupnomatterwhatthecontext.Youdon’t
likethecurrenttaxrates?Well,youprobablythinkthosetaxesaretoobecausePROPOSITION8.

Arguingwiththeleftislikeattemptingtonailjellotothewall.It’sslipperyandmessyandawaste

ofresources.Youmustforcethemtoanswerthequestion.SothenexttimetheymentionBush,your
replyshouldbe,“WILLIAMMCKINLEY.”Bushhasnothingtodowithanything.

In our gun control debate, Piers Morgan tried exactly this tactic; during the break, one of his

Oompa-Loompas scurried out with several boxes of Sudafed. Being from California, I, of course,
thought that we were preparing to cook some crystal meth. But what was about to ensue was less
profitable.HetriedtocontendthatIwasinconsistentbecausetherearerestrictionsontheamountof
Sudafed you can buy, but not on the amount of ammunition. I simply stated that I didn’t see the
relationship between the two laws. I’d be happy to discuss either in isolation, but I found the
connectionunnecessaryanddistracting.Hehadtomoveon.

Rule #8: You Don’t Have To Defend People on Your Side. Just because someone is on your side

doesn’tmeanyouhavetodefendeverythingheorshesays.Conservativesgettrappedinthisgambit
routinely, because they figure that the enemy of their enemy is their friend: if the left is attacking
someone,hemustbeworthdefending.Butthat’snottrue.IlikedGeorgeW.Bush,buthissecondterm
wasadisasterarea.Sowasmuchofhisfirstterm.Idon’tfeelthenecessitytodefendhisIranpolicy,
becauseitwasterrible.Period.

Ronald Reagan was not a god. He himself would have said that. Don’t follow people. Follow

principle.

Rule#9:IfYouDon’tKnowSomething,AdmitIt.IrememberonetimewhenIwasyoungerandwas

inabusinessmeetingwithaclientIwastryingtoconvincetoinvest.TheclientaskedmeifIknew
aboutsomethinghehadwritten.Inoddedabsently;hethenaskedmewhatIthought.IattemptedtoBS
aresponse,butfailedmiserably.Later,someoneolderandwisertookmetotaskforit.

ImadeitmymissionfromthenontoadmititifIdidn’tknowenoughaboutsomething.Don’tget

caught in the trap of believing you have to know everything about everything. Your opponent will
undoubtedlyknowsomethingyoudon’t.It’sfairtosimplystate,“Ididn’tknowthat,butI’llbehappy
toresearchandgetbacktoyou.”

Anotherside-notehere:don’tbringupatopicwithwhichyouaren’tpassinglyfamiliar.

MittRomneywouldhavebenefittedfromthatstrategy.WhenhebroughtupBenghaziintheCandy

Crowleydebate,itwasclearhewasn’tfluentwiththetopic.Theresult:hegotpantsedpublicly,even
thoughhewascorrect.

Rule #10: Let The Other Side Have Meaningless Victories. This is a parlor trick you can use to

greateffectwithyourleftistfriends.Leftistsprizefauxmoderationaboveallelse;bygrantingthema
pointortwo,youcanconvincethemthatyouaren’taradicalright-wingeratall.Afterall,everyone
canadmitbothpartiesareterrible!

These are points that mean nothing. You lose nothing by stating that both the Democratic and

RepublicanPartiesareawful–andtheylookimmoderatebyrefusingtoacknowledgethesame.The
sameholdstruewithregardtotheleft’slanguage.

If the left engages you on immigration reform, your answer should always be that you are for

immigration reform. Now, how do they define immigration reform? That’s the key question. But
becauseyou’vealreadygrantedthepremisethatyouliketheideaofimmigrationreform,youdon’t
looklikeanaysayeroffthebat.Thetruthisthatlikemostpoliticalbuzzwords,immigrationreform
canmeanvirtuallyanything:itcanmeanerectingamoatontheborder,orgrantingblanketamnesty.
Theconversationismeaninglessuntilyouforcethelefttodefineterms.Untilthen,wecanallagree
onuselessplatitudes.

Rule #11: Body Language Matters. Remember back in 2008 when John McCain was debating

Barack Obama? The imagistics were relatively horrible for Republicans. You had a tall relatively
good-looking black dude versus a short, hunched-over, angry-looking, balding white refugee from
castingforEmperorPalpatine.Duringtheridiculouswalkandtalkdebate,JohnMcCainthrottledthe
micasiftostrangleit.Whomeverlooksangriestindebateloses.Immediately.AndduringtheDNC,
Obama looked like a Greek god descending from the clouds on an Olympian stage, while McCain
lookedlikehehadgottenlostinfrontofagreenscreeninapornstudiointheSanFernandoValley.

Nixonlostthe1960televiseddebatewithKennedy,butwontheradiodebate.Theywerethesame

debate.Nixonjustlookedawful.

The left is expert at imagistics. The right is not, because the right falsely believes that shallow

imagisticscanbebeatenwithsubstance.Whichhasworkedoutfabulouslyforeverygreatactresswho
is300lbs.inHollywood–alltwoofthemwhoareworking.

Everyone laughed at Marco Rubio for swigging from a water bottle during his response to the

State of the Union; the right protested that such laughter wasn’t fair. But the truth is that it was fair.
Thewater-swiggingsaidtwothings:thatMarcoRubiowasnervousandtheRepublicanpartywastoo
incompetenttoremembertoputabottleofwateronthepodiumbeforehim.Imagisticsmatter.

BillClintonknewthatbodylanguagemattered.Hebitthelowerlip,becauseitconveyedemotion

andcontrol.Hehadvaryingtypesofhandshakeforvariouslevelsofpotentialdonors(andhehadone
special type of handshake for Monica Lewinsky). He gestured with the elevator-button-push: a fist
withthethumbpadforward,conveyingpowerandgentleness.Heuseswideandopenarmmotions.

There’sareasonthatmajorDemocraticcandidatesworkwithHollywood.PresidentObama–then

SenatorObama–wasthefirstmajorcandidatetoeverusetelepromptersinhisIowacaucuswin.He
knewhewasspeakingwiththeAmericanpeople,notthepeopleintheroom.Peopleintheroommay
have mocked him. He knew better. Ted Cruz should have been staring into camera during his
filibuster.AndheshouldhavebeenbitinghislipwhenhereadGreenEggsandHam.

You have to look like you’re a nice person in order for people to believe that you are a nice

person.Scientificstudiesshowthatpeoplewilljudgeyouliterallywithinmillisecondsofseeingyou.
Makethemseewhatyouwantthemtosee.

Conclusion

InFebruary2014,aboutayearafterPiersandIdebatedguncontrolonhisshow,CNNannounced

that he would be tossed off the program. I’m glad to have had a hand in exposing his nasty line of
argumentationforwhatitwas.Buthonestly,debatingthoseontheleftisaskillthatanyonecanlearn
ifyou’rewillingtoputinthetime,gettoknowyourownarguments,andgettoknowthearguments
oftheleftevenbetter.

Andyouwillbedraggedintothesedebates.Youwillbedraggedintoafight.Itmaynotbefun;

you may hate it. But you don’t have to hate it. In fact, it can be an absolute blast. The moment you
don’tgiveadamnwhattheysayaboutyoubecauseyourealizethey’relyingisthemomentyouhave
theupperhand.

It’sathrillwhenyouknowhowtorespondtosomeonewhocallsyouaracistwithoutevidence.

It’s a thrill to go on the offense. And it’s a double thrill to do so when you know the future of the
countryisatstake,andyou’retakingavitalroleinfightingback.

In 2009, Obama surrogate Jim Messina told Democratic Senators that they could defend

Obamacareasstridentlyaspossible–because,afterall,“Ifyougethit,”Messinasaid,“wewillpunch
backtwiceashard.”

Fordecades,conservativeshavebeenhitbybullies.Andthere’sonlyonewaytodealwithbullies.

InthewordsoftheWhiteHouse,punchbacktwiceashard.