Notes from the tactics:
- They're repetitive with they're rhetoric.
- Don't let them sound emotionally compelling to hide the real thing. What do the details look like.
- Explain the details of what they're trying to be emotionally compelling about from the past or now.
- Use removed from our society analogies so there is no emotional baggage.
- The right takes the worst of the worst and presents it as the whole.
- Showing one person (a character) says more than generalizing a group of people. Example: You don't talk about 100's of thousands of casualties in war, you talk about the one child's sock, alone on the ground.
- The left has to reclaim data as being down to earth and accessible since studies are just a collection of individuals' experiences. Get back to the emotional stories and details.
- Challenge how they came to that conclusion.
- Separate the person you're debating from the audience.
- The right are social scientists themselves and want to co-op the discipline, but also want to push out anyone else who disagrees with them. For example, kirk and peterson have very definite ideas about what genders look like, how men and women should interact and behave in the home, which is basically sociology. They don't want anyone else defining those things (practicing sociology).
- The right is using "biblical sociology." Have the sociology frameworks compete in the conversation with their details.
- There is no right way to do politics. Vote, protest, debate, join a union, etc., they're all good and do as many as you can.
Entire Kirk debate at Cambridge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkiM-z0Mzyg
