Logical Discussion

One of the biggest problems with trying to have a political discussion these days are the two major types of debating techniques in common usage. One type tries to use logical argument, supported by fact and thoughtful discussion of the issues. The other uses talking points (provided by someone other than the person actually engaged in the debate), diversion into areas not even part of the original discussion and a rapid descent into ad homonym attacks with special attention paid to using the verbiage of class warfare.

So, in today’s political discussion of, say hot dogs, the debate might go something like this:

A: I think hot dogs today don’t taste as good as they did when I was a child.

B: No. Today’s hot dogs are even better tasting than they were even a few years ago. This poll from Ipsos proves beyond any doubt that hot dogs are better than ever. Fully 51% of Americans believe hot dogs are better than ever.

A: Well, I have found that the hot dogs that are being made today contain a higher percentage of scrap parts swept from the floor of the processing plant and this study (exhibit A) shows that definitively. I believe this leads to an inferior tasting hot dog.

B: Well, that study was obviously produced by someone who doesn’t understand the intricacies of the meat packing industry. There is a move to streamline the production of meat packing and use the slaughtered animals to their fullest potential. The workers use every means available to salvage every usable piece of the animal. This  necessitates the use of sweepings so as to minimize the number of animals that need to be slaughtered.

A: But the percentage of sweepings affects the flavor. Exhibit A shows that there are bits of refuse swept into the stuff salvaged off the floor.

B: Only someone who doesn’t understand the need to minimize the suffering of the poor slaughtered animals could say such a thing. It is obvious that you are being willfully heartless in this matter. Most Americans are satisfied with the taste of their hot dogs. This is simply being willfully obtuse on your part. Your ideology and blind allegiance to your politics is causing you to disregard the Truth.

A: Look, I just want my hot dogs made out of the same things they used to be made out of. I don’t want the dirt and refuse from the floor mixed in.

B: Listen, you fascist. The majority of the workers in that plant are little brown people. It’s obvious you are threatened by the thought of little brown people taking over your precious hot dog production. BUSH LIED! HOTDOGS DIED!

Sounds stupid? I just got off a comment thread where that exact tactic was used. Not one person commenting on that thread mentioned "little brown people" until someone came on and implied that every commenter was a racist pig because they were threatened by "little brown people" (his exact words). 

So where’s this all going? John Hawkins has a tour de force logical argument in a FAQ format on the issue of illegal immigration. I suspect the racist card will be played almost instantly because his logic is unassailable.

H/T to the incredibly hard-working Gateway Pundit for the link