+JMJ+
Many Catholics today are afraid to take a stand on issues. If they do take a stand, they are afraid to connect their views to their faith, lest the liberal accuses them of letting their "values" get in the way of political thought (which, in of itself, is ironic --- shouldn't political thought be based on values?).
These are the plain and simple steps to win any argument with a liberal:
1.) Never let them try to make it a religious issue. That is their way of trying to say that there is no real answer, because they tend to believe that truth is subjective and based on experiential circumstance (and who's to keep people from having experiences?). (By the way, this is how license becomes confused for freedom.) Once they bring up God, they are only attempting to demonstrate that the topic of discussion is not definitive, and that you cannot, therefore, achieve your objective. This is a win for them; since they cannot argue on logic, a win for them is to cast dispersion on the strength of your argument. Don't let them back you into this corner. Remind them that it is a political discussion and not religious. If they wish to have an intelligent conversation on the matter at hand, tell them to stick to the topic.
2.) Start to define the most basic terms of the debate. Liberals never define their terms. They only employ shell game tactics to attempt to demonstrate that the related issues cannot be truly defined or even known. For the liberal, their 'science' must be falsified and mislead the public, and true findings must be ignored. Get them to see that they refuse to define their terms. You won't be able to continue a discussion with them, or rather, they won't be able to debate with you, because they almost always refuse to do this. Those who are the majority of the not-so-clever liberals, who disdain deep thought and prefer to make important decisions based on emotion and not reason, will surprise themselves as being totally unprepared. The rest will continue to try to evade defining their terms of the debate deliberately, because they are accustomed to this being their predominant tactic.
Remind them of Debating 101: Common, baseline terms must be defined; without establishing your terms, a logical argument cannot even take place. It's a 'step one' in any debate. Once they show that they are unwilling to do this, let them know that they were therefore unwilling to have a authentic debate.
Have you noticed how frequently liberal politicians will preface things with, "Let me be clear:" or "Let me be transparent..."? The reason for this is precisely because they are employing the common means of performing a magic trick: create a plausible diversion. Their very goal in making such statements (which in of themselves are ironic, since stating some clear or honest doesn't require anything from the hearer but the speaker themself.) In other words, they are saying, "If I don't come across as if I am genuine, it's probably your fault, but anyways..." When they start off with using these phrases it is because they are usually about to point out something which often does not provide a logical conclusion of the matter at hand, but just throws in a peripheral concern. They cannot "be clear" or "transparent" for the simple matter that they will not agree to common terms on the issue being debated, and more often than not, liberal politicians know appear to know this, as you can see from their consistent and deliberate use of this tactic. As a-matter-of-fact, they are so used to employing this method of diversion successfully because they are rarely challenged on the fact that they refuse to define their terms.
Here's a common example with the issue being abortion: When Does Life Begin? --- Already Agreed Upon Since 70s by Scientists In this example, President Obama realizes by now, that the question is not merely a religious issue, but a human right's issue, so he brings up science, hoping that the general public doesn't yet know that this is already a non-issue with the medical, biological and scientific communities since the 1970s; human life we begins at conception. (For those who do not already know, before the '70s, when the questioned was posed, liberals would simply say, "We don't know. It's a theological question because only God knows.") Then Obama says it is a "moral difficulty", implying that the question isn't answerable. The question wasn't, "What is your opinion on abortion?" but, "When does life begin?" He doesn't acknoweldge the common scientific assertion known today, and instead diverts attention from that fact (playing on the fact that we live in a society that buries its head in the sand on awareness scientifically or historically known facts that are in opposition to one's feeling of entitlement and licensiousness), and tries to bring attention to the moral issue where he has more room to twist.
3.) Let them know that you are happy to have a conversational debate with them, but not to be attacked verbally. This is the liberal's next tactic -- to throw anything at you hoping that something will eventually, maybe, stick. Nothing will 'stick' as long as you don't react. Remain calm and stay the course! Again, don't let them bring you down to their level. You can respect the person, even if they are already or are on the verge of being out of their mind and out of control. Never sink to their level, rather, remember "if not for the grace of God, there go I!"
4.) Don't let them change subject after subject. Ask them what point they are trying to make. If it is an ad hominem attack, go to step 5. If they can't help but change the subject out of fear that their ignorance on any one subject would be grossly apparent, they weren't willing to debate you anyway.
5.) Smile and walk away (and don't forget to pray for them). Do precisely what the devil does not want you to do at this point: remember that the real fight is for souls, and here is one before you. Don't even say that you'll pray for them, rather, just do it, commending them to the Immaculate Heart of Mary's intercession, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
That is, for the purpose of that interaction, a real win.+
That is, for the purpose of that interaction, a real win.+
