Why can one never win an argument with those who support Bush ?

Question

Looking for answers that have to do with the art of deception subtrafuge and chicanery and most importantly logical fallacies.

please give examples......perhaps something that has to do with a "before and after" scenario....say perhaps regarding torture or eavesdropping, or turning the corner and surging in iraq, etc.. In other words, what do they say at one point, and then what do they say later on when their earlier point has been proven to be untrue?

neo pirate.. what are you talking about?

you reported what? can to explain yourself? lol

well, it goes like this. First there is no torture going on at all, if there is evidence of some torture going then of course bush did not order it, then if torture is proven to be systemic an implying it was ordered then it was important that we do it and important info was needed to protect americans and by the way lets redefine torture so that the things that were done do not fit that descripition, never mind cour orders the law the constitution and all that. The bottom line is that whatever bush does has got to be ok cause he is doing it in the name of protecting americans.

lol

Answer 1

I'll give you a ton of examples were it's been won but it won't do any good b/c ignoramuses(dems) base their "winnings" on objective truth while intellectuals(REP) base it on subjective truth. Anyway Bush WON the vote TWICE and thats really all that matters! Bashing the president is treason if you don't like the U.S.A. LEAVE!!!!!

Answer 2

I will answer this question, but I would like to expand it to incorporate almost all political arguments. It brings up a very pedantic, but very important, issue in logical arguments: validity and soundness. An argument is VALID if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. And you know what? Most arguments put forth (and repeated) by skilled supporters of Bush (or the democrats, or whoever) ARE in fact valid. What they are not, however, is SOUND. An argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Now, the arguments that you're used to having probably are arguments about the truth or falsehood of the premises, with the conclusions an afterthought. And that's why you cannot win. In order for an argument to be LOGICAL the premises must be falsifiable. It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning. The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter (sound familiar?); it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable. So you are, in effect, having an argument with a brick wall. NOTHING you can say, no evidence you can bring forth, will change their conclusion. I have seen this with Bush supporters, democrats, socialists, even Libertarians (as much as it shames me to admit it). They are rock ribbed in their support and "logic", and as such their premises have become un-falsifiable. Which means they are not even logical any more, regardless of the form their arguments take.

But, besides the larger problems with their political logic, many Bush supporters are huge fans of:

Appeals to force (agree with me or the terrorists will kill you)
Appeals to fear (agree with me or 9/11 might happen again)
Appeals to authority (Bush is right because he gets to see ALL the information, and you don't)
Spacious reasoning (Bush's warantless wiretapping programs and the war in Iraq are working, because we haven't been attacked since 9/11)

Answer 3

The same can be said about the radical fringe on the left who no matter what you say they come back with a misrepresentation of what was done.

Example: I had asked a question about Murtha saying the surge is working and is it time for congress to fund the troops. I had linked the news article which I could have gotten from NBC, ABC, CNN or what have you but I used the article from Fox News. The one guy who was going to say I was wrong no matter what I said told me that Murtha had only said a portion of the surge was working (which was in the article I used) but failed to mention that when he said that it was a clarification from his office after he had been called out on it. After he had pointed that out he told me that my source was flawed becase it was Fox News.

As for your question about Bush Supporters I remember answering a question about Wire tapping and how it was illegal, I pointed out that it wasn't illegal because it was protected under the FISA provission in the Constitution.

It all depends on what people want to believe I feel, I think you can support someone who has been wrong in judgement before (I cannot hold them to something I cannot achieve myself i.e. perfection) but you should still support them as long as they are not grossly neglegent. While Bush has made mistakes I feel he has done the best he could and his mistakes have not been grossly neglegent.

In conclusion your question applies to anyone who is addimit that they are correct and have to much pride to be wrong.

I hope this answers your question.

Answer 4

I think it comes down to a very specific question... What, exactly, does one's own particular definition of "support" come down to? Can you support Bush a little, but find his flaws/mistakes so overwhelming and unable to accept that this undoes what little "support" you had for him?

Conversely, are you so "supportive" that you look past this administration's failures? What constitutes a "failure", anyways? Logically, I think the "Bush supporters" just aren't there; on this board, at least, they appear almost completely immune to the controversies surrounding this administration and their glorious leader. I think they feel they must remain absolutely loyal, or risk finding themselves with the horrible "liberal" opposition.

To be moderate and unbiased is shameful to the Bush supporter because it unwinds their absolute worldviews and dichotomous perspectives.

sexxxy ---> Interesting point! Subjective Truth (Cons) vs. Objective Truth (Libs), however, I see as something for liberals to be proud of! Again, I think it goes back to one's worldview; is YOUR truth more relevant than another's (Conservative perspective) or is EVERYONE's truth just as relevant and not as easy to essentialize (Liberal)?

To summarize my point: Logic does not work with the typical Bush supporter you will encounter on Y!Answers. You will continue to see them saying things such as, "Bush was right to go into Iraq; the WMD's were moved" or "Bush has his heart in the right place" and "He's really a good man." These are emotional/subjective responses (which are perfectly legitimized, leading to "fact" in the Conservative worldview) but have no basis in the "thinking" community that looks to the consensus and objective facts/reality OF the situation, and not the individual feelings or emotions it may evoke.

Answer 5

Many neocons don't want to debate rationally. The ones who reported this question are perfect examples. If they don't have a rational response, they remove the question and pretend it never existed.

[edit]
I just read Bigsky_52's answer, and I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I have to agree. Statements like "gay marriage is wrong" are political/religious dogma that can never be proven or disproven logically. Nearly all of Bush's support is of this nature, rooted in blind faith rather than logic or facts, and therefore arguing is fruitless.

Answer 6

Because they never answer you truthfully or ignore your question altogether.............
I keep asking if Bush did his best to protect America before 911 why did FBIHQ deny FISA warrants requested by field agents in Minneapolis?The agents who incidentally arrested the 20th 911 hijacker Zarcarious Moussauoi?
My favorite response is when they try to ay it was because of the wall Clinton erected between the FBI and CIA.
They ignore that FBI agents requested the warrants from the HQ!!!! NOT the CIA!

Answer 7

no Republican candidate is running on a platform to add to a Bush legacy, the Republicans lost Congress in the 2006 elections. Those are 2 facts no bush supporter can argue against.

Answer 8

Because Bush supporters are evil Republican Neocons which are professional liars and masters of deception.

Answer 9

Define what is meant by winning an argument. Do you mean changing the person's mind? Yeah, name calling ought to work great for you.

Instead, try the art of persuasion. Provide logical solutions to what you view as problems.

Answer 10

REPORTED? NOTHING whatsoever wrong with this topic, Butt Pirate.

Support for Bush has taken on the exact nature of religious fanaticism, and you cannot reason with that.