I had just finished with my last client appointment, and was preparing to leave work early today, when my private secretary let me know that I had a telephone call. It was Paisley, my nephew Jason’s latest girlfriend.
Paisley: Mr. Collins?
Tom: Hi, Paisley, what can I do for you?
Jason: You can help us settle something.
Tom: Who’s that? Jason?
Jason: Yeah, it’s me – we’re on conference call.
Tom: Okay, so what are you two arguing about now?
Paisley: The debate, Mr. Collins.
Jason: Yeah, the Republican debate in Iowa. Did you watch it?
Tom: As a matter of fact, there was a big hole in my appointment schedule this afternoon, and I did in fact watch most of it on an HDTV I keep hidden behind a wall panel in my office. But what’s going on here, anyway? The last time I heard from you two, you were both rabid Obama supporters.
Paisley: We still are.
Jason: Yeah, but it’s obvious that the Democrats are going to nominate the only candidate who is guaranteed to lose the general election for president to practically any Republican.
Tom: I presume you mean Hillary Clinton?
Paisley: Of course! She’s the Republican dream candidate, and the Democratic leadership are absolutely determined to see that she gets the nomination.
Tom: So you’ve concluded that Hillary is a foregone conclusion, huh?
Jason: Not so much that, but we’re convinced that she’s out to get the Democratic nomination by any means necessary.
Tom: “Any means necessary?” Jason, you know what that kind of talk means! You can’t be serious!
Jason: Ask Vincent W. Foster Jr. if I’m serious.
Tom: Jason, you had better watch what you say. They don’t make Hillary Clinton nutcracker action figures for nothing, you know! Talk like that can get you bent over in front of a couple of FBI agents.
Jason: Hillary Clinton doesn’t scare me!
Tom: Listen, kid – the only people who aren’t scared of Hillary Clinton are insane. Have you gone nuts recently and forgotten to tell me about it, by any chance?
Paisley: Jason, I think your uncle is right. You’d better watch what you say about Hillary Clinton.
Jason: Okay, okay. In public, at least.
Tom: But you still haven’t explained why you care about who wins the Republican…
Jason: Because that’s who’s going to be president!
Tom: Another Republican president? Have you told your parents what you and Paisley think is going to happen?
Jason: Yeah, and they say that if another Republican gets elected president, they’re moving to Canada.
Tom: So you two are trying to select the least revolting person among the Republican candidates, so you can support them?
Jason: Right. And that’s what we’re calling you about. Which of the Republicans is the greatest public master debater?
Tom: Well, gee whiz, all of the Republican presidential candidates are great public master debaters. None of them are as great a master debater as Hillary Clinton, however. She’s out there, day after day on the campaign trail, constantly showing the whole world what a great master debater she is.
Paisley: But it’s not fair! She’s a woman! Everybody knows that women can carry on great master debate indefinitely, making one salient point after another, multiple times!
Tom: Exactly. That’s why the ancient Greeks made them stay home while the men displayed their skills as master debaters down at the Agora. But once women got into politics… wow! Katy bar the door! You should have seen Margaret Thatcher go at it, hammer and tongs, in the House of Commons, hour upon hour…
Paisley: Hammer and tongs? Ouch!
Jason: Sounds rough.
Tom: It’s just a figure of speech. But, yeah, she liked it rough – and tumble.
Jason: Well, anyway, that’s it – Hillary is the reason why the Republican candidate has to be a great public master debater, too.
Tom: I see your point – given the importance of televised debate these days, all politicians are master debaters.
Paisley: So public master debating is a modern phenomenon?
Tom: Oh, no, not at all. There were plenty of master debaters before television. In fact, the tradition goes back centuries – Lincoln and Douglas; Webster, Clay and Calhoun; Jefferson and Hamilton – great public master debaters, all of them.
Jason: By the way, who was that big ugly thundering diesel that moderated today’s debate, anyhow?
Paisley: Jason!
Jason: Come on, get real, okay? That outfit – was it specifically chosen to make her hair look dull as dishwater and her figure look more dowdy than Susan B. Anthony, or was it just because she had Stevie Wonder pick it out for her?
Paisley: The moderator’s sense of fashion is irrelevant!
Jason: Not if I have to look at her for an hour and a half, it isn’t. Will somebody tell me what the hell was with that makeup? Is she auditioning for next year’s Great Pumpkin? And that lipstick – is she getting ready to run away and join the circus or something? Somebody ought to tell her Emmett Kelly’s estate has been known to sue!
Paisley: Stop! You’re objectifying her! And you’re making your uncle laugh! This is supposed to be a serious conversation!
Tom: Okay, okay, hold on here – that was Carolyn Washburn of the Des Moines Register.
Jason: Who? I mean, really, couldn’t they even get some C-list, third-string cable news announcer like, I donno, Wolf Blitzer or somebody like that?
Tom: I think it was the format. You could tell how frustrated all the candidates were with the format. I don’t think they could get anybody with a national recognition factor to moderate a debate with that format. The candidates wanted some space to stretch out, they wanted room to move, their hands free; the ability to master debate publicly, in a manner that every American could readily and fully perceive, and, furthermore, fully appreciate for what it was. And that format just wouldn’t allow it.
Paisley: What a shame.
Tom: The democratic processes of our republic are far from perfect; however, let us never forget, everything else is so much worse.
Jason: Amen to that.
Paisley: No kidding. So, Mr. Collins, I think that Giuliani was the greatest master debater, but Jason says it was McCain. What do you think?
Tom: Well, I’d say with a field like the one the Republicans have, you need to consider every candidate before making a final choice among them.
Jason: What, you mean we have to start out from square one, that we have to consider all of them, even Alan Keyes, for God’s sake?
Tom: My experience has taught me that is the best methodology, yes.
Jason: Aw, gimme a break! Alan Keyes is the post-modern Harold Stassen!
Tom: But still, you have to admit, he was up there in front of the cameras, proving himself a great public master debater.
Paisley: Okay, let’s start with him then. I remember that he blamed all our educational problems on secular humanism and the liberals taking God out of the class room. And he said that if we equate sexual orientation and race, we are saying that sexual behavior is beyond the individual’s control and moral will.
Tom: So he gets points for False Dilemma, Confusing Cause and Effect, the Fallacy of Division and Appeal to Belief. As master debating goes, you have to admit his use of rhetorical fallacies and tricks is considerable.
Jason: All right, let’s give Keyes that much, anyhow; what about Tancredo, then? His response to the question of improving education was to brag about what a great job he did under Ronald Reagan, reducing the size of the Department of Education. He said, after he was done, and there were only thirty percent of the original staff, nobody even noticed.
Tom: Nice combination – a one-two punch constructed from the Fallacy of Composition and False Burden of Proof – both signs of an experienced master debater.
Paisley: And Duncan Hunter used the question of what kind of conservative the country needs to attack his opponents using a blend of xenophobia and isolationism.
Tom: Clever deployment of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, an exotic and arcane rhetorical fallacy; thus indicating a deep sophisticated understanding of what it means to be an outstanding master debater.
Jason: Then there was Huckabee. He extolled his record as governor, citing his advocacy of arts and culture in the education system of Arkansas.
Tom: Ah, there you go – talk about clever use of the Fallacy of Misleading Vividness, not to mention a remarkable amount of chutzpah for a mere goyische shaggitz. I mean, really, arts and culture in Arkansas?
Jason: How about when Thompson blamed all our educational problems on the NEA?
Tom: Appeal to Emotion and the Fallacy of Questionable Cause. No doubt about it, Thompson’s a master debater, too.
Paisley: Then how about Huckabee’s speech on “What it means to be an American?” I think it was an extremely skillful use of Platitude, including such venerable chestnuts as “Our Founding Fathers,” “the Moral Call for Politicians to Humble Themselves Before the Electorate,” and of course, the “Log Cabin Where the Candidate Grew Up,” complete with images of him doing his hornbook lessons on the back of a shovel with a piece of charcoal.
Tom: Huckabee clearly displayed a great talent for Cliche and Platitude, both hallmarks of a serious, dedicated master debater.
Jason: So did Romney. “This is not a time for us to wring our hands and think that the future is bleak, the future is bright.”
Tom: Right up there with Reagan’s “Shining City on a Hill” platitude. More evidence of a true master debater at work.
Paisley: I was also struck by the way Huckabee turned the tables on his competitors on the question of what the candidates would do in their first year as president, when he called their recitation of soap box topics like national security, energy independence, immigration and taxes a “laundry list,” and then re-defined the discussion by outlining how the system needs to change, and, what’s more, how he wants to be the “president of the entire country.”
Tom: Nice combination of the Fallacy of Special Pleading with that venerable old war horse, the Red Herring.
Jason: And Romney put up a nice Straw Man when he stated that he would “do a lot more during his first year than just talk,” thus implying that all the other candidates were nothing but impotent windbags.
Tom: Point taken – excellent Straw Man, plus Poisoning the Well. Romney’s obviously got great master debater credentials.
Paisley: What about when Thompson said he didn’t know what he would do, so he’d call in the leaders of the military and major corporations and ask them?
Tom: The Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, nice shot, that; a real master debater at work.
Jason: Yeah, and it was pretty clever of Thompson to come back at Romney when Romney said “I don’t stay awake at night worrying about the taxes rich people are paying.” Thompson said, “Of course he would say that, Romney is very rich,” or words to that effect, as I recall.
Tom: Ah yes, the Fallacy of Circumstantial Ad Hominem; no doubt about it, that Fred Thompson is one serious public master debater.
Paisley: How about when he said the CIA and military lied about Iraqi WMD because both of them had been “neglected,” thus implying that giving them more money would have bought the truth?
Tom: Fallacious Appeal to Spite mixed nicely with an equal amount of Fallacious Appeal to Fear. That guy Thompson, he’s probably the most egregious master debater since Ronald Reagan himself.
Jason: Then there was Ron Paul…
Paisley: Yeah… What was the matter with him?
Tom: That was, I agree, quite sad, when Ron Paul made those comments during his statement of what he would do his first year in office. Huge mistake there – he spent an entire minute telling the truth, and that’s never a good idea for a public master debater.
Jason: About the only thing remarkable Ron Paul did was his answer to the question of what the country needs more – a social conservative or a fiscal conservative? He started to take off on that one, but I don’t remember anything else like it out of him, not for the entire remainder of the debate.
Paisley: Now that was some real master debating right there; during his answer, he managed to both embrace and distance himself from the term “revolution.”
Jason: Very impressive semantic minuet, no doubt about it.
Tom: True – Ron Paul gets big points for Obfuscation. But to be perfectly frank, when I saw him do that, I really couldn’t tell if he was masterfully confusing his audience, like Nixon, or merely betraying the fact that he’s profoundly confused himself, like George W. Bush.
Paisley: You mean, you think maybe Ron Paul doesn’t have the… uh… substance to be a great master debater?
Jason: You think he’s… short on what it takes?
Paisley: He can’t get hold of the upshot?
Jason: Can’t find his… conclusion in the dark?
Tom: Well, I’m not saying Ron Paul isn’t a skillful master debater, but you have to wonder whether he’s in the same class as some of the others who were up there on the dais with him today. I mean, really, when it came down to master debating, even Alan Keyes showed Ron Paul up; and it’s not like Alan Keyes is widely recognized as the world’s best master debater, by any means.
Jason: But on that same question, McCain offered to “reach across the aisle,” to the Democratic master debaters.
Tom: You have to admit, it’s very impressive when a world class master debater like McCain offers his hand to other master debaters, whether to a political ally or political opponent. McCain’s adroit use of False Appeal to Fear, False Appeal to Tradition, False Appeal to Common Practice, False Appeal to Consequences of Belief and Ignoring of Common Cause throughout the debate clearly demonstrated his credentials and bona fides as a great, world class public master debater.
Paisley: Now that you’ve pointed that out, and I’ve thought about McCain’s performance today, I’d say I have to agree with you, Mr. Collins. How do you figure McCain accumulated so much skill that he became such an obviously exceptional master debater?
Tom: I’d guess it was the five years he spent at the Hanoi Hilton. Not much else to do there between torture sessions, you know, besides honing one’s skills as a master debater.
Paisley: Which brings us to the last man standing, Rudolph Giuliani.
Tom: Right. Note that, during the course of the debate, Giuliani not only used every single rhetorical fallacy and means of deception any of his opponents used, but also threw in the Fallacy of Composition, In Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Slippery Slope and Guilt by Association.
Jason: All right, I concede. Paisley’s right – Giuliani is the greatest master debater of them all. But what about that business where that stupid cow…
Paisley: Carolyn Washburn of the Des Moines Register!
Jason: … yeah, right, Ms. Washburn – when she asked the candidates for a show of hands about the global warming issue? I mean, wasn’t that pretty screwed up, treating all those grown men like third graders or something? Wasn’t it like, totally condescending for her to behave like that?
Paisley: Not necessarily!
Tom: I’m afraid I’d have to agree with Jason, Paisley. She shouldn’t have done that.
Paisley: Why not?
Tom: Well, not because it was condescending, although it certainly was that. No, she shouldn’t have done it for another, entirely different and much more important reason – you should never ask big-time public master debaters to show you their hands.