Arguing With Idiots (Is Not a Good Idea)

Glenn Beck recently wrote a NY Times bestseller called Arguing With Idiots. I'm sure the book is great, but I don't like the title. I much prefer the title of Ann Coulter's recent book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). Arguing with idiots is not only incredibly frustrating, but also generally pointless. As Coulter puts it, "If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said—unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist." (Clarification: I do not believe that all liberals are idiots. However, I do believe that many idiots are liberals.)

Mark Joseph has a great opinion piece on the Fox News website about the Arizona immigration law controversy. He writes, "Watching events play out in and around the state of Arizona in the wake of the state's recent immigration law makes me more and more wary of blind allegiance to ideology and wary, too, of the emergence of a whole class of people who strike me as being immune to logic, reason, analogy and thoughtful debate, trapped in a Never Never Land in which conclusions are reached and then held on to, just because. I see this in our attorney general and our head of Homeland Security, both whom, to their credit, have admitted that though they are dead set against the Arizona law, they haven’t actually read it. I see it too, in an e-mail I received recently from a promoter who tells me my artist’s scheduled date on a major music tour in Phoenix has been cancelled because of the law. When I remind him that 17 other states are poised to pass similar laws he writes back “unbelievable.” When I remind him that it’s actually a restatement of federal law and wonder aloud if he’ll be extending the boycott to the rest of the 49 states in the union -- to be consistent -- he falls silent."

I am willing to debate with someone who wants to defend Obama and his policies using substantive evidence such as facts and logic. I believe that I am honest when I say that I am willing to at least consider their point of view. There have been liberal friends who have commented on this blog and have sought to argue honestly using facts, and I respect that and give their arguments the respect they deserve. Unfortunately, I have also had some very disappointing experiences in arguing with liberals. To have a productive debate with someone, both parties have to be willing to listen to the other side's arguments, consider them thoughtfully, and respond to them factually, point by point. You cannot debate with someone who refuses to consider and respond to your points, or who parrots the same talking points without providing any supporting evidence, or who plays the race card in answer to almost every question, or who answers your questions by completely changing the subject.

My conclusion: It is a straight waste of your time and energy to argue with some people. (The Bible calls it "casting your pearls before swine.") There was a time when I thought that most people could be persuaded or at least enlightened by a good enough argument. I have come to realize that many people come into discussions with their minds so tightly closed to an opposing point of view that they will not even listen to and think about what you have to say, much less be open to persuasion. They are willfully and willingly ignorant. You may not know who those people are at first, but a few conversations will tell you all you need to know. They may be (and often are) kind and friendly people. They may be your friends or family members. But you should never start a serious conversation with them about politics. Arguing with idiots is not a good idea.