Deceptive Arguments and Specious Reasoning - Political Debate Gone Wrong

There are a lot of ways to win an argument andleads me to believe they are true. Al Gore
a lot of ways to deceive others into thinkingsmears people who don't believe global warming
you've won an argument. There is one set ofto be "settled science" and with that, hopes to
rules to follow when you have facts on your sidestifle debate on the issue.
and a different set of rules when the facts areStifling debate, by the way, is not the same thing
not with you. The first rule is to never use any ofas winning the debate. Unfortunately, the
these rules in arguing with your wife. If you do, itDemocratic Party has become a party that can't
should be under controlled circumstances and onlydebate on facts and therefore, they debate by
when there is professional supervision.character assassination. Whether it is global
There are situations of absolute fact. Forwarming or the Tea Party movement, the left is
example, OJ Simpson either killed two people orconstantly trying to impugn the integrity and
he didn't. People may disagree as to whatmotives of whoever has a different point of view.
evidence shows but there is a Yes/No answer toPersonally, I would never want to stifle the
the question of whether OJ did it or not. Noopinions or speech of people on the left. Every
matter what anyone believes, the event didtime they speak, they tell you who they are and
happen in a particular way and was caused bywhat they want to do. The fact that they don't
specific actions.extend the same courtesy to people on the right
Other situations are more theoretical. Globalis a great indicator of who is telling the truth and
warming is a theory based on models andwho is lying.
evidence. Whether it exists, is caused by humanUh-Oh, I think someone just fainted while reading
activity, the extent of damage (if any), whatthis article. If anyone knows the address of the
might or might not happen in the future, all has toperson that just fainted would you please get him
be based on honest scientific inquiry. In the firstor her some water? Maybe have him or her lie
situation with OJ, you are dealing with a knowndown and prop some pillows up so he or she can
fact (two people were murdered) while in thebreathe. Please give him or her plenty of room....
second, you are dealing with a future eventThe final straw in this Global Warming/Climate
(some say an event that has started already),Change/Greenhouse Effect thing is when Mr. Gore
but in any case, one that is not as specific as alabels people who want more evidence into global
Yes/No answer can provide.warming as equal to Holocaust deniers. Global
The last situation is one of morality and spirituality.warming is a theory. The Holocaust is a historical
Issues such as abortion or the death penalty fallfact backed up by evidence including hundreds of
into this third category. There is much passion inthousands of witnesses, physical evidence, film
these debates. A belief in God is a matter of faith.archive and even admissions by some who
The ongoing evolution vs. creationism debate alsocommitted the horrific acts. To compare this to a
falls under this last category.subjective theory such as global warming is an
While there may be some issues that cross theinsult to the memories of the people who died in
line between these three categories, in mostthe Holocaust, as well as to the survivors and
situations they will fall in one of these groups andtheir children.
not more. When propaganda is used, it is usuallyBarack Obama's way of dealing with a challenge
done by blurring the distinction between these(not that he faces many from the main stream
categories.media) is different than Al Gore's. Obama's
A good example of this is to look at how Al Gorepreferred method is to ramble meaningless
argues the inevitability of global warming. First,phrases as if by the magic of his oratory skills,
backing up a step, if you are going to debate anpeople will forget what the question was. Asked
issue, one of the best ways to do it is "Searchwhat his favorite White Sox player was on
and Destroy". You find your opponent'sopening day of the baseball season, he couldn't
arguments, you list them one by one, and thenjust say he didn't know or remember any. He
you point out why they are specious or why theirtalked about being an Oakland A's fan while living
reasoning is faulty. When people have truth onin Hawaii, blathered some other meaningless things
their side, they are eager to display why theabout liking the Cubs but never answered the
arguments of their opponents are wrong.simple question! You'd expect that from a kid in
Getting back to Al Gore, when he is faced with athird grade, not the President.
question challenging his belief in global warming, heWhat is amazing about this is that Obama made a
never answers it. He simply labels people whospecific point of showing the world that he was a
don't agree with him as "deniers" or "flat earthers".White Sox fan. He pulled out a White Sox cap to
Some people may not disagree, per se. They justdisplay in front of 40,000+ Washington Nationals
may not be sure, not being as scientifically trainedfans and millions watching on TV. You'd think he'd
as Al Gore, they just want more of a debatebe prepared to answer, just as a matter of
before committing so much money, resources,common sense, some questions about the team
and lifestyle changes to a theory that they don'tsince he made such an unnecessary spectacle of
know enough about.bringing it up. It makes you wonder, if he is that
If Mr. Gore had the facts on his side, he wouldunprepared for a question that is the logical result
bring out all these challenges to then tear themof an action he has taken, then how is he to be
down ("Search and Destroy"). Some argumentstrusted negotiating with Russia or China? Who
against global warming (there are many more):knows, maybe he put on the White Sox cap to
- The ice in Antarctica has been growing sincegive fans an excuse to boo. That way, he could
1979.say they were booing the cap, not him or his
- Temperature measurements during the 90s (theactions, but he couldn't be that narcissistic, could
supposed warmest decade) did not use weatherhe?
stations in some of the coldest climates whichIf he can't answer a simple question about his
artificially increased the average.favorite player, how is he to answer questions
- There is evidence of warming on other planetsabout health care or taxes? The answer to that
indicating that sun spot activity may be a causeis a 17 minute incoherent response to a question
of temporary warming.about whether or not the US is already too highly
- Ice core samples show the middle ages to betaxed to shoulder the additional burdens to pay
warmer than the present.for health care. If Obama had truth on his side, he
- The earth has been cooling in the last 15 years.wouldn't need to spend 17 minutes on a disjointed
- Many of the same people who are now warningdissertation while still not answering the question!
about global warming were warning about theObama mixes in all tactics. He confuses fact with
coming ice age as recently as 1975!theory, and throws in a hefty dose of moralizing
- There is evidence, also from ice core samples,and somewhere in between all the meaningless
that the cause and effect of global warming iswords you are almost tempted to say "Stop
backwards. In other words, increased levels ofalready! I give up -- just stop talking!
CO2 in the atmosphere didn't cause globalThe old joke says "How can you tell if a politician
warming in the past but, in fact, periods ofis lying?" Answer: "If his mouth is moving". Some,
warming caused increased levels of CO2.however, lie more than others. Propaganda
These are just some of many arguments againstinvolves turning facts into subjective concepts
the theory of global warming. Not being awhile turning subjective concepts into facts. It
scientist, I would welcome hearing the other sideinvolves taking bad policy and packaging it as an
to these points but all I hear is crickets. That noabsolute moral good so that no one dare oppose
one does a "Search and Destroy" on these pointsit.