How Deceivers "Win" Debates

 A middle class family shared an anecdote on Twatter (first mistake) about how inflation is affecting them. They shared details (second mistake). The Swamp Media, Deep State bureaucrats and professional politicians have been pushing a ludicrous narrative that there is no inflation, that a $3.5 TRILLION spending spree will cost nothing, etc. Here are some average US citizens simply pointing out tangible evidence to the contrary. What Deep State apologists absolutely do not want is for other average citizens to compare notes, realize that their own experience matches the cited evidence, and begin to THINK: "the value of our earnings is being robbed from us at a rapidly increasing rate." 

So the Swamp Presstitutes swarm like roaches and dogpile on the family's milk consumption. They don't even attempt to justify the financial devastation (because they can't); but instead twist the narrative into some snarky criticism about what groceries the family buys. "You don't NEED all that milk!" Notice there's also a condemnation of the parents for having "too many" children. "It's really YOUR FAULT for not using contraception!" Heartless middle class racist religious fanatics--having children of their own and providing for them, when what we really need is more foreign-born parasites who hate our country and vote accordingly!

This is a tactic I see used all the time these days: 

1. An honest person makes a valid point. 
2. Dishonest people (and institutions--like the mainstream media) don't have a valid counter-argument, so they nitpick some detail out of everything the honest person said, and attack THAT as if that is the totality of the argument. 
3. This misdirects most observers from the issue in question onto something else they can criticize into irrelevancy. 
4. That way they can appear to have won the argument without ever having addressed the actual issue in dispute.

We've seen this with "gun control" for decades now. An American brings up the fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution and therefore the law of the land. Some Establishment mouthpiece ignores this fact and steers the debate into an argument over whether a citizen "needs" some particular type of firearm. "You don't NEED an AR-15!!!!" All participants and bystanders are misdirected into a pointless debate over who has the authority to determine what other individuals need, because the dishonest person/institution doesn't want others to be reminded that infringing on this right is a flagrant violation of the law.

You might have seen it on the topic of abortion. An honest person makes the point that ending a life inside the womb (the premeditated killing of an innocent person unable to defend himself) is sanctioned murder. The dishonest person reaches down left field and pulls in some diversion about abortion clinics being bombed and abortionists killed. Clinic bombings don't justify the murder of children; but the tactic may successfully ensure that point is lost in the heat of the distractive argument. They can't justify infanticide, or the double standard when it comes to protection of wildlife (it's a federal crime, for instance, to tamper with an eagle's eggs), so they have to steer the debate to something else that makes them appear to have the moral high ground.

The culture war has been lost, thanks to the cowardice of generations who let the State program their children's minds. But while the culture war was still ongoing, this tactic was used frequently in the controversy over normalizing sodomy. The gist of it was: "Bad people have said/done mean things to homosexuals; therefore you must accept sexual perversion as normal and good. If you criticize perverse behavior, then you are just another bad person saying/doing mean things." On this same topic, the tactic was applied in the Church as well:

"Whereas too many Christians speak out against sodomy;

And whereas other sins besides sodomy exist and are condemned by God;

And whereas not enough Christians speak out against those other sins;

Therefore nobody should speak out against sodomy--and if you do, you are not acting in love."

Put another way: Because the Bible speaks against other sins; that means condemnation of THIS sin in the Bible can be ignored, denied, and debunked.

The mental gymnastics and leaps of logic required by this tactic are substantial. But the enemy is an expert on diversions, clouding the issue, and burying logic under emotional reasoning.

This is how the enemy keeps Joe Public from noticing elephants in the room and asking what should be obvious questions.

Dishonest people use this false dichotomy in numerous topics.

If you think too much of your earnings are already being confiscated and wasted on government schools that have catastrophically failed in their primary (alleged) mission of educating children, then you are "against education" and "for ignorance."

If you want to keep biological males out of women's restrooms, then you are "transphobic" and want "transgenders" to be abused somehow.

If you don't want foreigners (who broke the law to infiltrate your country) taking over our neighborhoods, being given resources that you have to pay for, and voting in our elections, then you are "xenophobic" and are denying their humanity.

You recognize that Islam is not compatible with individual liberty, a representative government, a high-trust society or the personal safety of citizens? Then you are "Islamophobic."

A man prefers not to date or marry an arrogant, outspoken, irrational, entitled drama queen? He is obviously "threatened" by her "strength" and "independence."

See how deceivers like to portray revulsion or disapproval as fear, phobia, or "hate"? It's the same tactic. It shifts the focus from the inexcusable behavior in question to an insidious implication that he who disapproves is psychologically dysfunctional in some way. "You only think that way because you have a dirty brain that needs more thorough washing!"

The tragedy of human history is not just that evil consistently triumphs. It is that evil triumphs by making spurious claims, oxymoronic arguments, by camouflaging, distorting or ignoring facts, by outright lies, and by deflecting scrutiny of its presuppositions. The evil have no choice but to use these tactics because the truth is not on their side.

And good men allow the tactics to succeed.