Two years ago (or so), ye olde publisher, Carter Crane, sent me an E-mail which informed me that someone (I won’t mention any names) wanted to debate me on the pages of The Voice. My first thought was, “I refuse to engage in battle of wits with an unarmed person.” On further thought, I deemed that response was hateful, stupid, and uncivil, and I retired to my cave to formulate a proper response to that someone (I won’t mention any names).
It was a difficult task. During the long years of writing op-ed pieces – first to TONIT (that other newspaper in town), and then to The Voice – I dared to say things no one else dared to say, because I believed those things needed to be said, despite the consequences. I have taken considerable heat for things I dared to say. I have a “fan club” which has encouraged me to keep up with the daring, not that I have ever intended to stop daring.
As far as debating with this someone (I won’t mention any names) is concerned, it seems that we are already debating, after a fashion. I say something truthful, and that someone (I won’t mention any names) responds with something hateful, stupid, and uncivil and repeats it endlessly.
The rules for a proper debate were set down in 1957 by George McCoy Musgrave’s book, Debate: Rules and Techniques. There are five steps to be taken: (1) Introduction – express one’s viewpoint and say why it’s important; (2) Statement of Fact – break down the general thesis into smaller parts; (3) Confirmation or Proof – deal with each part in order, building up to a Conclusion; (4) Refutation – explain why counter-arguments are faulty; (5) Conclusion – sum up your argument with a final statement. There are four “Cs” of debate: Critical thinking; communication; collaboration; and creativity. What not to do in a debate: Shout; use inappropriate language; and include false “facts.”
Our someone (I won’t mention any names) has yet to grasp the rules of debate but has followed the example of the bombastic T. Rump. (Oh, drat! I mentioned a name!) The ex-president doesn’t know how to debate; it’s much easier and self-rewarding to lie, insult, and threaten, because his loyal puppets will eat up his every word and pass it on as “fact.” Therefore, if I were to debate this someone (I won’t mention any names), I would expect them to follow their own advice and do whatever they insist I do.
I had to laugh at someone’s (I won’t mention any names) observation that, when they arrived in the U.S. of A., they were awed by the “seamless and respectful” transfer of political power from one administration to another. That someone (I won’t mention any names) informed us that such does not occur in a dictatorship. Does anyone remember what happened after the election of 2020? A would-be dictator – someone’s (I won’t mention any names) idol – refused to cede the election to his opponent, claiming that the election was “stolen” from him; he has spent the past three-and-a-half years trying to overturn the will of the people. Our someone (I won’t mention any names) must accept this truth – they are wasting their time defending Agent Orange – but I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to do so.
On a similar note, I wish to comment on the controversy surrounding Kamala Harris. She has been showered with vile epithets by T. Rump (oops! I mentioned a name again!). He has not gotten around to using the oldest epithet, however, one which goes back to pre-Civil War days. It is “uppity,” used by white people to describe a person of color who attempts to assert him/herself in public.
So, is she black? Is she Indian? Is she Christian? Is she Hindu? Who cares? The Chas says. Red blood flows though her veins as it does through you or me, dear reader. Kamala Harris is a lovely, intelligent, dynamic human being. And any shmuck out there who thinks otherwise can take a flying leap.
Just a thought.