It seems that when one person gets upset about a stance that a conservative may stand upon, the non-progressive backs down as if afraid to offend their opponent. Sometimes, the debate alters into a mud-slinging match fully equipped with name calling, and non-factual statements. Usually, these messes appear when emotions are applied, a narrative the liberal lefties excel at. So, a large part of maintaining control in these battles is to not allow the leftist to control the narrative, set the premise, and get your emotions riled up.
A well-informed person who takes a stance based on a legal premise, not one founded upon emotion, or case law, has a fighting chance. A debater using the original intent of the principles of the United States Constitution stands a better chance at planting seeds and emerging victorious in a debate than those that allow the opposition to set the tone, while emotions fly.
Confidence is also a large part of being well-informed. The student of the Constitution must be sure of their stance, and be prepared of anything that may be thrown at them. The way to do this is to call upon the foundation of the Constitution for the debate by taking a purely "authorities granted" point of view.
We must remember that if faced with today's myriad of federal government activities, the first question that would be uttered by the framers of the United States Constitution is, "Why is the federal government involved in these issues in the first place." The opponent in any debate will more often than not prize their own individuality. They may not necessarily have faith in others exercising their individual freedoms, but for themselves the individual that they are should not be tampered with. This is where we must begin our groundwork.
We must remember that if faced with today's myriad of federal government activities, the first question that would be uttered by the framers of the United States Constitution is, "Why is the federal government involved in these issues in the first place." The opponent in any debate will more often than not prize their own individuality. They may not necessarily have faith in others exercising their individual freedoms, but for themselves the individual that they are should not be tampered with. This is where we must begin our groundwork.
The basic premise must be established as, "The federal government was created to handle external issues, and disputes between the States, while all local issues are supposed to be handled by local government."
If you have a clue over something that is important to your debate-mate, this will be the time to draw upon it. Chances are, their "local" pet issue is something that they don't believe bureaucrats should be manipulating, or interfering with. Whatever it is, if it is a local issue, there will be no authority enumerated in the Constitution to support federal intrusion into that issue. If the federal government is tampering with that particular issue, then they are doing it unconstitutionally, or they "seized" that power. Bringing this to the attention of your opponent on an issue that is locally important to them may help with the planting of seeds
Remember, anytime a government, or body of officials, "seize" power, that is a sure sign the system is a tyranny.
I was reading a recent interview, and the person's response about confidence was that a person must "celebrate self-acceptance, cultural diversity and individuality and aim to inspire young people to feel comfortable in their own skin."
Should the federal government dictate to someone how that "self-acceptance" should be achieved? While championing cultural diversity, should a central government dictate to you which of those cultures should receive protection, or a protected status, over other cultures? If individuality is a necessary part of feeling comfortable in your own skin, why are we allowing the federal government to dictate to our local governments regarding issues that directly affect the local population?
Being a warrior does not necessarily mean getting into fights at every turn. To be a trailblazer is sometimes achieved by embarking on a well-thought out strategy that includes not fearing what others think, fighting the battles you know you can win and setting aside the other battles for another day, or knowing what the opposition may say when they disagree with you.
Being a warrior does not necessarily mean getting into fights at every turn. To be a trailblazer is sometimes achieved by embarking on a well-thought out strategy that includes not fearing what others think, fighting the battles you know you can win and setting aside the other battles for another day, or knowing what the opposition may say when they disagree with you.
Surround yourself with like-minded people, and learn from them. If you are trying to prepare for anything the opposition may throw at you, that means there are attacks you have never encountered before. Learn what those obstacles are from others before you engage the opposition.
And most of all, don't get caught up in the "common good" argument. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The federal government is not all things, innovation happens when the federal government is limited to only its proper constitutional authorities, and in the end it is all about authorities granted by the Constitution and the parts of government acting within the roles given to them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment