Debating Zombies

I enjoy watching Charlie Kirk's debates with college students. Not necessarily for the (admittedly hilarious) entertainment Kirk provides as he 'demolishes' these 'woke' student's arguments and talking points, but rather to gain an insight into how leftist zombies debate - if you can call what they do 'debating' - and, on how to engage with them effectively. 

Here's what I've discerned, so far:

Their arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. 

While they all appear to genuinely believe in the positions they take, I've yet to see (or hear) any of these students express 'an original thought'. It's like they've been taught what to think but not how to think. They regurgitate leftist talking points and slogans but appear confused when Kirk refutes their point or asks them a question. It's like they don't have a sufficient understanding their own ideology to defend it. 

Lenin and Stalin had a description for people like this: "Useful idiots".

Instead of defending their position, they resort to a predictable selection of conversational / debating tactics. 

These include:

Refusing to define concepts, terms or words: A concept, term or word they use in one sentence can mean something completely different in the next. It all depends on the point they want to make in the moment. It's irrelevant to them, that what they say in one sentence might contradict what they said thirty seconds ago. Their only goal is to get their message out. 

Refusing to agree to or abide by, 'ground rules'.  

Constantly interrupting: This tactic appears to be designed to silence their interlocutor. And to a leftist, silence equals agreement.  

Going off-topic, introducing 'red-Herrings' and 'thought-stoppers': This is 'conversational Whack-a-Mole' and  is designed to keep the subject of the conversation so fluid that no rational conclusion can be reached.

Watching the zombies, I get the impression that they're less interested in having a conversation or a debate, than they are with having a microphone and the opportunity to 'virtue-signal' to their fellow leftists. Charlie Kirk is just an annoyance to be brushed away like a persistent Fly at a picnic. 

They absolutely detest being shown to be wrong in front of their peers. If outwitted, they will descend into 'hate-speech'. 

Objective reality, logic and reason having being discarded from their ideology, they argue everything from "morality". 

So. How to respond effectively to these tactics? 

1. The audience is what matters! There's no point engaging with a zombie unless there's an audience to witness it. Always keep in mind that your interlocutor is infected with the Socialist Mind-Virus. This is an incurable infection that will remain with them for life - like Herpes. They are the real-world incarnation of zombies. You can't change a zombie's mind. You engage with them in order to sway the audience to your point of view. 

2. Realise that your zombie isn't actually interested in debating you. From their perspective, you're just providing them with an opportunity to 'virtue-signal' to the audience. You're just an annoying interruption to their diatribe. Short-circuit this by insisting on ground-rules before you begin and enforce them every time the zombie breaks them. 

* Make it clear that you are not there to lecture each other.  This is a conversation (or a debate).

* Don't interrupt the other person. 

* Don't wast time. Make your point and be brief about it. 

* Keep your comments relevant. Stay on-topic. 

* Agree on your definitions before you begin. Refuse to start until you have. If they bring up a new word or phrase during the debate, refuse to proceed futher, until an agreed definition is established.  Define what they mean by (word). If they can't (or won't) define what they mean, then everything they say is meaningless and there's no point continuing. Or; If they can't agree on a definition, then we're just talking past each other and the conversation is pointless. 

* Be prepared to justify any statement you make, if challenged.  

* Call them out on every violation.

* Terminate the conversation if they keep breaking the rules.

3. Leftists always argue 'from morality', and always claim their position on any subject is the 'moral' one. Never allow them to claim the moral high-ground without challenge. Insist they justify their position. 

An example often serves to illustrate a point better than a long-winded explanation so, let's take a quick dive down this particular Rabbit-hole: 

On Abortion: Abortion is one of the pillars of leftist ideology, so it's a good one to attack as the zombies can't seem to restrain themselves from engaging. 

Instead of taking the position; "Abortion should be illegal because it's murder", instead, say; "Abortion is immoral because it's murder". 

See the difference? 

This short-circuits the "my body, my choice" argument, because you're not claiming any control over 'her' body. She's free to murder her unborn child if she chooses. She may be acting legally, but not morally. If they want to justify abortion, it puts them in the position of having to justify murder as 'moral'. 

So, they'll try to (re)define "Murder' as something other than "the deliberate, premeditated, unprovoked killing of one human-being by another". If they have a different definition, insist they justify why their definition is more 'moral' than yours. Don't proceed until they do. 

They'll argue that a foetus is not a human (it's just a "bundle of cells") and that life begins at some point after conception. To counter this, ask: "Is an Acorn an Oak tree?" Of course it's not! But can an Acorn become anything other than an Oak tree? Can it become an Elm? Or a Redwood? Or a Eucalyptus? Or a Sycamore? No, it can't. Therefore, while an an Acorn is not an Oak, it will become one if it germinates and grows. Just as an Acorn is a potential Oak, so a fertilized Ovum is a potential human, no matter if it's one cell, a "bundle of cells" or a foetus. 

Is an Acorn alive? Yes! It can't germinate if it's dead. And the moment it germinates, it will become an Oak tree. But it will die if it doesn't get the conditions necessary for it to germinate. Just as an Ovum will die if it's not fertilized by a sperm. New life begins at conception! 

Birth-control is moral. Abortion is immoral.     

Everything that's not S.T.E.M. can be argued from morality.