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.