Controlling the terms of the debate...

This isn't a well-formed idea, however, I just wanted to comment on something that I've noticed a litte bit for a while, and which has struck me with with greater intensity the last few days. It has to do with controlling the terms of the debate.

Yesterday, I got involved with a very long argument about GMOs. I wanted to talk about the econnomics and the business model, from sort of, if it could be quantified, a JD's/MBA's perspective, rather than a MD's/chemistry PhD's perspective.

The person who most viogorously objected to my argument kept telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, etc., etc. At the end, it turned out this person is a chemist who wrote a paper on Round-Up, which suggests s/he has a deep (financial, probably) interest in GMO-boosterism (one of the big GMO crops is a wheat that works with Round-Up). This person was so intent on discrediting my perspective and trying to shape the debate around the chemistry, and suggested I was unqualified to discuss the matter because I didn't understand chemistry, and it turned out, by that person's own logic, they didn't have the authority to discuss the issue I wanted to focus upon, because that person wasn't a JD, an MBA, a economic development expert, a farmer, and didn't have any of the sorts of experiences which would inform an opinion on what I was trying to address.

I see this sort of rhetorical strategy all the time here, and from the right wing -- they are so intent on controlling the terms of the debate, and they try to deligimate your angle, or perspective, or the position from which you're trying to argue, rather than confront the argument on the terms established.

I just have to say to people here who are trying to make the liberal arguments, whatever they are, that you have to really be vigilant about controlling the terms of the debate -- you can't let people shift the ground out from underneath you. It's just a strategy for not addressing the truth.

you know the tactic to use is to respond with whatever they say
by saying something like

"the real problem is"

and then go into your viewpoint

just ignore the attempts they make as if they never even
tried to redirect the discussion

If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law
If the law isn't on your side, argue the facts
And if you have neither on your side, bury your opponent with bullshit, which billable by the hour.

If the facts are against you, argue the law
If the law is against you, argue facts
If both are against you, pound the table.

of debates, maybe break them down into 5 candidates and switch people out over 3 or 4 debate sessions.

If a politician can't expound on an important social issue for 30 minutes or an hour, or five hours, they have no business expecting to get elected to confront those issues.

I'd love to Lincoln-Stevens style debates...

But of course that would totally overflow most attention spans.

And it might change the rankings in an undesired way