I have not posted in awhile because I have been working on this series of posts on a debating technique. This series is complex, and so interrelated that I need to roll the posts out all at once – both, so they may be taken together, in their entirety, and they will appear together on the blog. The concepts here will be somewhat radical as well. They were born of such unique personal experiences that I fear some may find it difficult enough to grasp these concepts through the written word, given all of the information at once. Were it not all presented together, individual posts might be more difficult to understand, absent corresponding information in their associated posts.

The basic premise of the posts will be that Liberals are processing incoming stimuli during debates through a completely different neurological filter compared to Conservatives, and their goals within debate are different as well. As a result, Conservatives will argue within the bounds of honesty and honor, to find logical truth, while Liberals will argue in a less rule governed fashion, simply to acquire followers, and create consensus around their views – in essence validating them through public acceptance. This difference in purposes during debate can be exploited, if you understand it.

There is some limited evidence that individuals process incoming information differently. It has been shown that those with low dopamine function tend to show high levels of activity in parts of the brain associated with self awareness, social behavior, and perceptions of environment, and that this is different from those with high dopamine function, who tend to be more task-focused and rule oriented in matters of competition. If, as we assert, Liberals exhibit lower dopamine function, this would explain our inability to reach consensus in debate, even when facts are clear, and conclusions inevitable.

If true, Conservatives will instinctively fail to meet the Liberal on the correct elocutionary battlefield, for it will not be enough to simply be correct. One must also focus upon preventing the Liberal from feeling as if they are amassing consensus around their false premise.

By combining these strategies, one will acquire the support of both those who base their decision upon logic, as well as those who base their decision upon the consensus of the masses. It will be only through these means that one maximizes the support within the populace for Conservative principles and values. It is my hope that this distillation of Liberal debate techniques, and the purposes they serve, will aide in this.

I will probably put this material out in much more detail in a book at some point, but for now, I want to get the basic concepts out there, and on the record. You never know what the future holds, and I would hate to take this to my grave, when I feel it could do so much good for the movement and freedom.

Next up, Part I – Foundational Understandings

Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics

Table of Contents

Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part I – Foundational Understandings

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part II – Mike Wallace Debates a Marine

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part III – Mike Wallace’s Amygdala On Overload

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part IV – The Presentation

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part V – Distilling the Stimuli

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VI – Additional Stimuli

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VII – Amygdala Development and Inducing Maturity