The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Everyone’s talking about the border wall these days, especially because it’s the reason we’re currently in a partial government shutdown. President Trump wants a down payment on it, and equally stubborn Democrats are loathe to give him anything he could call a “win,” even if they could get much-wanted concessions in return.

So like it or not, the issue is bound to come up at some point over the holidays, especially if you’re planning on spending them with family or friends who happen to be liberal. And when it does, you’d best be prepared …

… Prepared, that is, to DEMOLISH their arguments, Tucker Carlson style.

First, you must be aware of a few basic things. When it comes to discussing the border wall topic with liberals, you’ll basically know they’re lying when their mouths are moving. OK granted, allowing for the fact that some liberals are genuinely “good people” and may actually believe the nonsense they’re spouting, lying or at least being intellectually dishonest are pretty much par-for-the-course when you’re discussing ANY issue with a liberal. But on this one especially, the dishonesty is so unbelievably blatant that it’s hard to imagine how their noses manage to keep from growing.

How do I know this? Easy - from their arguments. To a person, every liberal politician or talking-head will state their supposed desire for “border security” while at the same time dismissing the idea of a wall as both 1.) unworkable and 2.) too expensive. Chuck and Nancy did it in President Trump’s office earlier this month, and every liberal who discusses the issue anywhere on television does the exact same thing.

It’s like they’re all reading from the same talking points, all a complete lie. But why those talking points specifically? That’s easy too. It’s because they have to hide at all costs the real reasons - 1.) that they want as much low-skilled illegal immigration from the Third World as possible, 2.) a wall would significantly slow down or deter this (i.e. it would work), and 3.) a wall is a permanent structure that would be difficult to remove once a Democrat takes office.

The have to hide those true motives, of course, because a majority of the public wouldn’t agree with them. Therefore, in order to win the discussion and expose them for the liars they are, conservatives must destroy the perception that liberals are actually, despite what they say, for “border security.” And in order to do that, one must first attack both the contention that walls don’t work and that they are too expensive.

And that brings us to a Friday night conversation between Fox News host Tucker Carlson and liberal radio host Chris Hahn (after you read this column, be sure to click the link and watch the video) that not only aptly demonstrates the chasm between left and right, it also provides a great blueprint for conservatives debating the topic.

“We can secure the border through modern technology,” Hahn said, predictably pretending that he actually cares about border security before launching into the ways he believes walls don’t work. “Put a ring video doorbell that would do better than a wall. A wall didn’t work for China. They got overrun when they had a wall. It’s not gonna work for us.”

But Tucker wasn’t falling for it. Instead, he went right to a concrete (get it?) example of a wall that DOES work:

“Does it work in Israel?” asked the Fox News host. “Does the wall work in Israel?”

Because when pressed, any sane person will be forced to admit that, indeed, the Israeli wall works. The question forced Hahn to admit that walls work “in places,” at which point Carlson pressed the advantage.

“Oh! I thought they didn’t work!” he said sarcastically. “Wait, hold on. I’m a man of moderate intellectual means here. Literally 30 seconds ago you told me walls don’t work. It’s medieval. People dig under them. I said ‘what about Israel?’ Which obviously nobody wants to criticize. And it kind of does work. So the question is does a wall work or does it not work?”

At this point, the liberal was forced to admit that he’s “not for no wall, nowhere.”

In other words, Hahn, the liberal radio host, is on record as being for a wall … somewhere.

“Look. I’m not for no wall, nowhere. I’m not for the wall from sea to shining sea,” he said before trying to switch the debate to the red herring of Mexico actually pulling out its checkbook to pay for it.

Having none of it, Carlson went back to the heart of the issue: “Why wouldn’t you do whatever it took to secure your country’s border when you have over 20 million people living fraudulently using fake federal I.D. in your country? That is a disaster. Why wouldn’t you respond in a meaningful way? I actually don’t understand why you would be against this. What is the reason?”

Hahn again tried to switch the subject, but Carlson kept him on point by anticipating the “too expensive” option, easily destroyed because Democrats never care about whether a public works project is “too expensive.”

“Why?” Carlson asked. “It’s not because the wall doesn’t work, because it does work, as you know. It’s not because it’s too expensive. No it’s not. What is the real reason?”

Finally, Carlson poked fun of Hahn’s hypocrisy by forcing him to admit the position that liberals are for “American troops in Syria” but “not at the border.”

There you have it - a perfect strategy for debating the border wall with your liberal friends or family members. Try it over the holidays - it’s sure to be much more entertaining than boring small talk and watching Aunt Bertha spike the eggnog!