Hapless critics, please step it up

There is a recurring theme to every written discourse that I have with people when arguing a point. It goes like this:

Vanfair: X is wrong, Y is correct.

Hapless opponent: What?! No X is right, and how can you seriously believe in Y?

Vanfair: No, you ignoramus. X is not only incorrect, but it can easily demonstrated to be incorrect because it is contingent upon A,B, and C, which have been proven incorrect for 70 years. And Y is correct because D,E,F necessitate Y.

Hapless opponent version 1: Wow, I can't believe you think like that. Good thing you don't write for a popular news site deluding so many people.

Hapless opponent version 2:.......... [doesn't bother responding at all]


The reason so many of the written debates I engage in inevitably take the aforementioned path is because many people quibble with my seemingly insane conclusions without realizing there is nevertheless a sound and wholly conclusive foundation for them. Once I inform them of those foundations, they have no course of action but to retreat and pretend that nothing happened. Readers will know that this is exactly what happened to a woman I engaged in about feminism. So in keeping with this narrative, a facebook friend found it within himself to dispute one of my status updates:

Me: if America waves its collective middle finger at Rep. Ron Paul again in 2012, then it will surely deserve the ultimate destruction that undoubtedly awaits it.

Facebook friend I hope he doesn't get anywhere near the Presidency.

Vanfair: Ron Paul is literally the only candidate that respects human liberty, the constitution, and the rule of law.So what about him is so objectionable?

Facebook friend: He isn't a Republican. He is a libertarian that is using the republican party to dip into a bigger pool of voters. Also he wants to legalize drugs, prostitution and strip the military of its strength. So alot of things =D

Vanfair: Considering that the Republican establishment has produced so many abysmal politicians, I consider Ron Paul's deviance from it to be a good thing. Moreover, he is probably the most conservative candidate out there (at least fiscally), even if he hasn't flirted with the idea of legislating morality through banning drugs, prostitution etc... because it violates individual freedoms. As for the military, the historical evidence demonstrates that empire building overseas actually weakens it. Dr. Paul realizes that an expansionist foreign policy is incompatible with a small and limited governemt...

The point is, Ron Paul has shown he is the only politician with the balls to put an end to this profligate government spending and clamp down on the federal reserve that has financially raped this country. Whatever one's differences are with his other views.

Facebook friend: Thinking like that makes me glad he doesn't have a chance.

In which I would reply that it is very difficult to have sympathy for someone that willfully refuses to acknowledge the obvious. Its like having sympathy for a person that willingly stands in the middle of a highway.

If I didn't have to face this guy in person from time to time, I would have brutally tormented this hapless critic because that is exactly what his response merited. At times, I ask myself why I even bother seeking input by posting intelligent updates on facebook, its like going to the science fair looking for the next Michael Jordan.