How to Argue with Right-Wingers – A Winning Strategy to Dealing With the Other Side

By Daniel A. Amerson

An Intimate Study of the Right
"Why are right-wingers getting in the way of progress?"
"Why can't the 'right' just shut up and get with the times?"
"Why are right-wingers so certain of themselves?"
"If the right-wingers had never existed, then the world would be such a great place."

If you've ever held similar thoughts to the ones above, then 'How to Argue with Right-Wingers' is the right book for you!

Today only, get the new 'How to Argue With Right Wingers'.
Read on your PC, Mac, smart phone, tablet, etc.

In this mini-book, Daniel A. Amerson offers an unconventional approach to dealing with people you disagree. This book is not about airing our political grievances, but rather a reference guide to having meaning discussions with people we disagree with. These techniques are most useful in one-on-one discussions (i.e. not during televised debates) and whenever the other person is intellectually honest. 

This book includes conversational tactics such as:
- Why you don't know how to properly deal with right-wingers, and why you'll likely never learn 
- What a 20th century psychologist can tell us about having useful discussions
- Why both parties can claim to be 'the party of facts and statistics' 
- Why you don't know how to argue persuasively, and what to do about it
- How to never 'trigger' the right-wingers' defenses (and keep them relatively rational)
- Six common sticking points in your discussions with right-wingers
- An offer you can't refuse
 
Can you honestly say that you can do all those things?
If yes, show this to a friend. If not, then...
Download your copy today!
Don't leave your political future to chance!

Take action today and download this book!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Daniel A. Amerson
• Release date: Mar 12, 2017
• ISBN: 9781386360261

Book preview

Chapter 1 – What the Hell is Wrong with Them?!

[return to table of contents]

According to a Gallup Poll, 37% of the United States population are self-identified Conservatives [1]. By name, Conservatives are often labelled as right-wing, reactionary, and traditionalist. Some Conservatives are Christian, hence the term Christian Right.

Conservatives are, however, often characterized as anti-evolution [2], anti-global warming [3], anti-abortion [4], anti-social security [5], anti-universal health care [6], anti-immigrant [7], and just plain bad people [8].

And yet, they are the most politically active Americans [9], which might be the cause behind the Republican win in the US 2016 elections.

You may consider their attitudes to be anti-science, anti-women, anti-poor, anti-minority, xenophobic, bigoted and hateful.

You might think that right-wingers block progress in every way, shape or form. You might also think that life for everyone would be much better if they all just disappeared!

However, I offer a word of caution.

From this point of view, there’s nowhere to go; if you believe that they are horrible, that means that, in your world, anyone who is right-wing is evil and must be stopped at any cost. There is no discussion, only condemnation.

Let’s take a step back; what if their positions come from an adequate thought-out point of view, supported with decent reasons and evidence to support them? You wouldn’t know unless you spoke with

Reviews for How to Argue with Right-Wingers – A Winning Strategy to Dealing With the Other Side

[ambrs57 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Very good in terms of presenting principles for having an irenic, rational, and fruitful discussion with someone with whom you disagree. Highly recommended for that. It is ironic that the author appears to not have put into practice his own advice when it comes to understanding the other side. When he mentions specific "right-wing" ideas, he gets them dead wrong, showing that he hasn't done his research to adequately understand the position, reason and evidence for the other side.

Two examples: Slavery - his statement that the Bible supports and prescribes slavery shows a remarkable, but typical for atheists, incapacity to interpret an ancient text on its on terms and within the historical context in which it was written and practiced. In fact, the Bible introduces regulations in an ancient political context, meant to mitigate the abuses of slavery as then practiced. Most importantly, it teaches a view of human nature, along with specific ethical principles that were intended to bring about its inevitable demise in cultures permeated by biblical assumptions.

This led the author to the remarkably biased and inaccurate historical conclusion that it was modernity that ended slavery in the West. The facts show otherwise. The abolitionist movement was a direct result of the efforts of Evangelical Christians, beginning in the 18th century, who applied to politics the biblical notion that all humans are created in the image of God and thus have equal dignity and rights to life and liberty. They concluded that slavery was a horrible sin against both God and humankind. Motivated by this overtly religious principle and the equally biblical conviction that governments exist to defend these rights, they launched and waged the battle that eventually brought down slavery. They also won the intellectual battle, over time, against those who defended slavery by ripping the supposedly pro-slavery passages out of their context in order to defend the institution. They did all this at great cost personal cost to themselves.

No rationally informed Christian today reads the Bible and concludes that slavery is approved of therein. Only atheists and skeptics continue with such a clearly discredited notion. Hence, by supporting such a view, the author has already violated his own method and lost the argument. An informed Christian/conservative will immediately see that he has no idea what he is talking about and that there's no reason to take seriously anything else he says regarding what is historical fact.

The second example regards the caricatured, straw-man image of what the conservative supposedly thinks about the relation between employers and workers. After being in conservative circles for 50 years, I can't think of a single person or writer within that time that I have ever met or read who argues that workers should just shut up and accept whatever conditions an employer wants to impose and that there should be no government protections for worker's rights. Perhaps Amerson may find some outliers somewhere, particularly in much older, outdated works, but if he really wants serious dialogue with "right-wingers" he ought to follow his own advice and not alienate them immediately by presenting a ridiculous, straw-man picture of their views, couched in a sweeping generalization to boot.

All in all, the book is highly recommended for its excellent principles on how to argue with an opponent, but loses two stars for the authors flagrant inability to practice what he preaches.

[joseph dubreuil · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Terrible writer and a terrible book. Get a different job.