Dear libertarian: have you ever had a debate that went the following way?

— Statist: well, I think your conclusions are silly because how could we get roads if it weren't for our omnipotent State?

— You: ummm, roads have been built privately for eons <you proceed to show evidence>.

— Statist: well, I still don't believe you because how could we get health care if it wasn't centralized?

— You: mmmm, look at all this evidence that shows decentralized voluntary provision of health care works better <you now show evidence>.

— Statist: well, erm ... <yet another easily-refutable excuse to reject your conclusions>

... and so on, ad nauseam.

At some point, your intuition told you that the statist was merely listing flimsy excuses to disbelieve what he just didn't want to believe to begin with.

Did you ever second-guess that intuition of yours?

Well, turns out, you needn't have to. Your conclusion about the stereotypical "debating statist" isn't just correct — there's actually a proper term to describe this conduct, which is well-researched in this glorious year 2016. Enjoy: