One similarity I noticed between my discussion partner and other members of the thin and decaying leadership of the Democratic Party is the use of rhetorical grandiosity in actual arguments. It’s one thing to make sweeping claims and generalizations in a speech, but quite different to do so in an argumentative framework.For instance, Senator Boxer, when questioning Condoleeza Rice during the confirmation hearings, didn’t just bring out the WMD trope but claimed that it was the only reason for the resolution. A moments check shows that, of course, it wasn’t. Why use such a weak and clumsy lie?
In my other discussion I was accused of not admitting mistakes and insisting that I was right. Of course, that’s not an accident. I do two things that I suspect my opponent doesn’t
In contrast, what I noted was, as with Boxer vs. Rice, an apparently unresistable urge to make the starkest, most sweeping claims. I suspect yet another manifestation of Logo-Realism. If words are determinitive, then big sweeping claims are more “powerful”. If one is used to a cocooned world of people with a similar viewpoint and similiar opinions, it’s an effective technique. In a fact based argument, however, it’s a classic way to overextend yourself and get cut off at the knees. No wonder the Left hates facts.