MONOWI, NE (Pop. 1) Since liberals lead with their heart and not their head, it only makes sense that, in a logical debate, they should not prevail over conservatives, who lead with their head, not with their heart.  But this is not the case.  Liberals win far more than their fair share of debates and discussions, whether with conservatives or others.

I have determined how they do it.  They use the “shoehorn” – in three ways.

What’s the “shoehorn”? Simple, it is a technique where something, inappropriate, false, inflammatory, or completely unrelated to the matter at hand, is injected into the debate or discussion.

Here are the three ways liberals use the “shoehorn”.

  1. At or near the beginning of the debate or discussion, they “shoehorn” into the dialogue, a false, inflammatory, unrelated, or inappropriate detail about their opponent.  Hence, the conservative is at a disadvantage from the inception of the dialogue.  For example, liberal pundits always immediately point out that they are a minority, gay, victimized, oppressed, or special in some other way, even if they are not (e.g. Joe Biden thinks he is a minority because he served with a black President).  Conservatives never mention these things about themselves.[1] 
  2. Again, at or near the beginning of the debate or discussion, the liberal “shoehorns” into the dialogue, as many unrelated but positive facts about themselves as they can get in.   This gives the liberal another immediate advantage.  How many liberals immediately label all conservatives racists, sexists, bigots, idiots, religious zealots, ideologues, hacks, homophobes, anti-Semites, white supremacists[2], islamophobes, misogynists, need I continue? I have never heard a conservative begin a dialogue by calling their liberal opponent a baby-killer, statist, socialist, hisogynist, anti-manist, non-pietist, or a conservaphobe[3].
  3. During the debate or discussion, liberals “shoehorn” a false narrative into the dialogue so that the matter being discussed is framed in the liberal’s favor. For example, when liberals discuss abortion, they always frame the issue as one of Reproductive Rights[4] or women’s health[5]. The issue is never frames never as under what circumstances, if any, should our society permit a child/unviable tissue mass[6], should be extinguished. Similarly, when discussing gay marriage, liberals immediately start calling their opponents “haters”, rather than discuss the costs and benefits of gay marriage, as they affect to gay marrieds and society as a whole. 

While the above points are excellent debating techniques, they tend to skew any dialogue so that the viewer can never obtain a clear picture of the issue being debated or its possible resolutions.  This cheats the viewer from learning about the subject and analyzing any possible solutions. 

In any case, we should always remember – In a debate between a racist, sexist, homophobic, idiotic, misogynistic, Anti-Semitic conservative hack and a caring, considerate, smart, good looking, well informed, nattily attired  liberal saint, the conservative could be right!   


[1] Can you imagine Thomas Sowell ever prefacing a discussion by pointing out he is black?  Can you imagine Kamala Vanilla ever not prefacing a conversation by pointing out her race?
[2] Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, is often labeled a white supremacist.  Apparently his accusers don’t understand that White Supremacy really means Christian White Supremacy.   Ben doesn’t qualify.
[3] The last four descriptive nouns were invented by me to fill the need for more derogatory terms that can be applied to liberals.
[4] A strange label, as the right to reproduce is the one thing they are trying to avoid.
[5] As if pregnancy and childbirth were unhealthy!
[6] It is also never mentioned that the unviable tissue masses discussed in the abortion debate, unlike all other unviable tissue masses, grow into human beings!