Liberals have long since learned that debating Conservatives can be a challenging endeavor, since Conservatives have a penchant for fortifying their arguments with facts, statistics, history and other elements that create convincing and thoughtful arguments.

Not to worry. The following are several tips Liberals can use right away to begin defeating Conservatives in every debate, every time.

Lib Tip # 1: Drop the Race Card: The moment your Conservative opponent begins crafting a cogent, air-tight argument buttressed in fact, drop the race card. This technique is designed to stifle further discussion, impugns your opponent and puts him on the defensive. Often, this is enough of a distraction to direct attention away from your lack of qualitative, quantitative evidence.

Lib Tip # 2: Impugn the Source: When debating a Conservative, content is less important than character. When your Conservative opponent states a compelling argument, do not address the argument and instead attack the Conservative personally. Since we are all sinners, it shouldn’t take long to find something wrong with your opponent. Use it.

Lib Tip # 3: Social Justice Trumps Logic: Argue every issue from a “Social Justice” or “Moral” high-ground. The Conservative will attempt to show that your ideas are unworkable, unsustainable or downright illogical. Don’t worry about any of that. Just stay on message by arguing from the moral, social justice perspective.

Lib Tip # 4: Exploit the Weakest Link: Define your opponent by his weakest link. If 10,000 Tea Partiers hold a rally, and one guy has a placard that is inappropriate, that is all you need to characterize the entire group as radical, racist militants. See how that works? It’s simple and fun and, most importantly, deflects all those awkward facts and articulate points away from the discussion and leaves the Conservative in a defensive mode.

Lib Tip # 5: Use “New Speak”: If health care is not a right according to the Constitution, and you want it to be a right, claim it is and then raise your voice. Raising your voice is always the best course of action in lieu of a good argument. Redefine words to suit your needs, and always be on guard for any stray, powerful fact or statistic the Conservative may use to support their position.

Lib Tip # 6: State the Opposite of what you believe: If you are in favor of taking money from producers and giving it to non-producers, that’s fine, but make sure your wording is a bit more obtuse than that. Try saying you are in favor of moral and social justice, and characterize everyone who earns a good living as somehow having won the lottery in life, and all those who want as being desperately hard-working folks who have an almost allergic reaction to hand-outs. Never imply or point out in any way that people can change their situation simply by making better decisions.

Lib Tip # 7: Define America by it’s Errors, not its Successes: Taking a cue from Lib Tip # 4, it is important to characterize America by it’s errors in judgement and misdeeds. It is critical that you completely overlook the good things America has done, and the manner in which it has beaten back one dictatorship after another. In fact, you must go to some lengths to divert people from the notion that without America, the world would be a far more dangerous, hostile, sad place. So talk about Indians and Slaves.

Lib Tip # 8: Blame talk radio and FOX news for fanning hate and racism: Avoid at all costs the fact that both talk radio and FOX news stand in defiant refutation of an otherwise fully agreeable media that presents only one template, a liberal template. Also, attempt to divert attention should someone ask why Conservative Talk Radio and FOX news is growing  exponentially, while traditional, liberal media is closing offices, thinning their employees and running deficits like, you know, the government.

Lib Tip # 9: Government is Good: Insist that a massive expansion of government is a good thing. Assert that it is our patriotic duty to pay ever more in taxes so that a centralized government comprised of east and west coast Liberal elites can decide what is best for the unwashed masses, since it would be sheer lunacy to allow individuals the right to make decisions for themselves. If you run into problems, see Tips 1-8.

Lib Tip # 10: Assign Blame away from Yourself: Always assign blame to the other guy, preferably a Conservative. This may require rewriting history so that people may one day believe that Reagan did NOT usher in 25 years of prosperity, or it may require still more retooling of the content of public school text books. But over time we’ll get there.

Remember: The ends justify the means. No matter how cruel and violating the means may be, if it results in a mediocre society where all citizens ultimately suck off the the government for their most meager needs, it will all be worthwhile.

There is of course the small matter of where all the money for all these programs will come from. Right now, they come from spirited entrepreneurs, dreamers with drive and other people whose passion poses a direct threat to the new world we want to usher in.

But first things first. Learn the ten tips to squelch free speech, hurt your opponent with the intellectual equivelant of a kick to the groin and avoid facts, statistics and studies altogether, as those will get you in trouble.

Good luck Liberals! Battle on and remember what Dennis Prager said: The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Oh wait, no. You don’t want to remember that. My bad. Here, try this: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Yeah, that’s the one. Whew!

Back in BC (Before Conservative), I was an emotional, scatological debater. When discussing political issues with republicans or conservatives, I would paint with a very broad brush, making a suspicious number of general statements void of any specificity, and would become frustrated when my opponent would confront me with facts and razor-sharp examples that destroyed my entire premise.

That would ultimately lead to my committing the worst of debating sins, the ad homonym attack. Sometimes I would simply remain aloof and claim that my opponent was simply uninformed, when in fact he had been the one making clear, supportable statements.

That was many years ago, and I share this with you because I now find myself on the other side, taking pride in my research, happy to provide quantifiable facts, figures and examples to support my point-of-view, and I am amazed at how many people cave when confronted with irrefutable evidence directly conflicting with either their opinion or world view.

One tactic I see repeated is where a liberal or progressive begins with a general statement. I tell them they are incorrect and provide plenty of evidence to support the exact opposite position. Rather than concede, they invariable state that the topic in question is less important than THIS comment, this one over here, let’s talk about THIS! They divert, but never acknowledge.

Or they engage in a sort-of bi-polar semantic dance where, although the topic of the discussion was clearly stated and understood at the onset, once they find themselves defending a weak position they begin to parse and slice, chop and dice, until the original point is lost.

Here’s a simple example:

I recently had a conversation with a dear friend. I stated that Obama blames Bush on a regular basis. He was genuinely astonished at my assertion and boldly told me I was incorrect. After laughing at my comment he told me to provide him with three examples of Obama blaming Bush.

Within ten minutes I had assembled an email containing a dozen articles from all over the political spectrum. Indeed, the examples even had the phrase “Obama blames Bush” in the title and the body of the article.

So,  how did my friend respond? You won’t believe this. He exclaimed that the articles I sent dealt with Obama criticizing the Bush ADMINISTRATION, or Bush POLICIES.

What did he think I meant? You don’t know? I don’t know! Heck, I asked him what on earth he was talking about. What was it he thought I meant. Now, walk with me here. At this point my friend shifted the discussion away from the fact that I had indeed provided him with many examples of Obama criticizing Bush to a discussion about my “tone” in the discussion.

And so it went folks. My dear friend simply could not conceed a very simple truth, namely that Obama has and continues to blame Bush for most everything.

I still think the world of my friend. In fact I empathize; I recall the frustration I felt when I was a liberal. Unable to debate on facts and dates I would resort to any possible tactic. In this case my friend bisected, disected and parced his point until I had lost all interest.

I suppose one lesson here is that, when debating a liberal or a progressive, define terms with anal specificity. Ask lots of questions and repeat what they say. Make sure you both agree at the front-end of the debate on what is being discussed.

And smile. Smile and pat yourself on the back for taking the time to move beyond emotion to reason.