Straw Man argument: that billions of people celebrate the birth of Christ but don't think Jews lived there before 1948. Post-er quotes the source as "Evangelical Bible.com".
Indignant, ignorant, downright insulting response to me simply pointing out that it was a Straw Man argument: Matthew 26:33-35. Really??!! It's silly!
Some guidance for so-called leaders: in order to defeat an opponent offering an actual solution to a real problem, first:
1. Pretend that you wish to engage him/her in rational debate with a view to improving the quality of the solution. Start slow and easy, polite and "helpful".
2. Define the problem in such a way that your debating counterpoint becomes the issue to be resolved - not the real problem. Debaters know this tactic - it is usually the first priority of the first debater on any debating team - define the topic in such a way that your side will win the debate. Never mind the real problem that prompted the debate in the first place, that is not relevant because the aim of the hypocrite is always to win the debate. Fight on the Definition, Never Mind the Solution!
3. Salami-slice. Once the misleading definition has established the false premise necessary to win the debate, build upon it by slicing the opponent's points of evidence away - bit by bit. Slice them off by arguing that they are not really evidence of the real problem. For example, argue that the ultimate effect of various multiple actions should be ignored. Ignore the underlying intentions of legislators when they mount multiple indirect attacks on the rights of a particular group, where a direct attack would immediately be seen by other lawmakers, judges adjudicating disputes and the general public audience for what it really is. Instead, argue that superficial, asserted, stated or claimed, top-line intentions are all that matter. Ignore underlying motivations or the big picture that ties seemingly disconnected attacks together. Argue that indirect attacks are not attacks at all. Argue that they are simply irrelevant to the "real" problem - which you yourself had earlier defined such that it is **not** the real problem. By this method, the opponent's evidence - though overwhelming - can be whittled-down bit by bit into a tiny core that you will ultimately invite the audience to dismiss.
4. Mount the in personam attack but call it an attack on the merits. An in personam ignores the merits of the issue - the real problem - and in this sense builds on the misleading definition of the real problem by adding on a layer, that attacks the personal characteristics of the opponent. For instance, call him insane, or stupid, or some combination of both. But say that there is evidence of that insanity or stupidity other than the fact that the opponent dares to challenge your misleading definition of the real problem. Put up little cherry-picked moments - gaffes - from the opponent's life or career as evidence of an unsound mind, while ignoring the overwhelming mass of those other facts that point to a long, distinguished, and currently still high-achieving and very sane and intelligent life of your opponent. When it is pointed out that you are engaging in an in personam attack, claim that you are discussing the merits of whether or not your opponent is fit to challenge anything or anyone, based on evidence. Make it an issue of the current debate although it did not start that way. Strenuously try to make it seem that there is evidence for rational discussion, as opposed to the naked personal attack that it is. If assertions continue that this is just a personal attack masquerading as a rational discussion of the merits of your opponent's sanity or intelligence, mount a further personal attack: "I cannot believe that a person of your eminence, experience, education and/or intelligence cannot follow my very simple line of reasoning, supported by evidence. Do you not understand the true meaning of in personam?" In other words, double-down on the in personam angle of attack.
5. Never, ever, let your opponent have the last word. Ever. Always take the last chance at the microphone. This is critical! Recency effect means, your audience is more likely to remember the last words they heard compared to the words they heard earlier, all other things being equal.
6. Invite your audience to join in the ridicule, have a good laugh, and walk away. Hands down. Always send a message of good cheer - even though winning the debate delays or prevents a real solution from ever being implemented to a real problem, with all the negative consequences for real people who were hoping for more from their leaders.
QED.
