How Do You Refute an Argument Based on Facts?

clarkeIt can catch you off balance when you hear something that you know to be wrong, yet because of the way it’s articulated in the context of facts and statistics, you’re not able to refute it directly. It’s a strategy that is often used by the media and in the context of debates where topics are subordinated to tactics.

How do you refute an argument based on facts?

With a platform based on Truth.

Loaded questions and agenda-driven campaigns can be difficult to navigate. It’s especially challenging when what’s being communicated is offensive to the point where you feel a certain amount of anger welling up inside you. Even if you’re able to respond with something effective, unless it’s stated in measured tones and in a manner that sounds confident and well thought out, it can pale in comparison to a well rehearsed collection of bullet points, however nonsensical they may be.

A good example is an interview with Sheriff David Clarke conducted by CNN’s Don Lemon. Don begins by saying the that message of the “Black Lives Matter” movement is one of peace and bringing the country together. He then asks Sheriff Clarke, “What’s your message?”

The question is brilliant because however Sheriff Clarke answers, if it’s distinct from the message of “Black Lives Matter,” the implication is that it’s something other than peace which is precisely what Lemon and his compatriots at CNN want to promote in that it gives credibility to the notion that our country is fundamentally flawed and needs to be recast in the image of something more liberal.

It’s more than racism. It’s same sex marriage, it’s the doctrine of entitlement, it’s the eradication of any notion of an Absolute save the absolute of yourself. It’s amoral, it’s godless and it’s twisted. And what makes it especially lethal is that it’s incessantly promoted with words such as “compassion” and “equality.” Should those tactics prove to be ineffective, then words like “fascist” and “neo-Nazi” are deployed in an effort to distort the message of Conservatives so that it appears cruel and irrational.

The interview between Lemon and Clarke was conducted in the aftermath of some demonstrations that happened earlier that month (July of 2016). Lemon’s question was particularly offensive to Sheriff Clarke given the fact that in Dallas, a “Black Lives Matter” protest deteriorated into a violent scene of carnage as 12 police officers where shot. Sheriff Clarke looked at Lemon with an expression on his face that revealed the disdain he had for Lemon’s apparent, if not obvious apathy, for the cops that were shot and his simultaneous support he had for a movement based on a distorted perspective on the facts.

What Sheriff Clarke demonstrates is the way in which you handle an argument based on facts. You dismantle it with a platform based on Truth.

When you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions and the accuracy of your answers is in direct proportion to the accuracy of your perspective. You see this in the context of social justice, in politics and you see this in matters of theology.

Know what you believe and why (1 Pet 3:15-16). And when you’re confronted with a compelling sounding piece of fiction that fans the flames of a godless perspective, be ready to dismantle their argument with something other than a strategically collection of facts. Rather, respond with the Truth – a comprehensive picture of the issue as it truly is that acknowledges the substance of their platform while at the same time reveals it as a flawed and incomplete disposition in light of the bigger picture.

While Sheriff Clarke didn’t respond to Lemon┬áby simply saying “The Truth,” his rebuttal was just that. It was “The Truth.” By asking Lemon if he really believed the message of the “Black Lives Matter” platform is one of “peace” and going to ask if there was any outrage on their part as far as the deaths of the policemen that were killed during their riot – this reveals the inconsistency of their mantra.

You don’t evaluate a system according to the way its abused. Where there is corruption, you address it in the context of the individuals that are guilty, not the entire institution they represent. Furthermore, the indignation that supposedly serves as the philosophical foundation for the “Black Lives Matter” group is based on intentionally falsified accounts of what really happened in order to give their rhetoric credibility (cnsnews.com, thepoliticalinsider.com, muscularchristianityonline.com). That is the truth and while it may not sway those who are determined to cling to a lie because of the way it reinforces the view they have of themselves and the world around them, for the sake of those who are on the outside looking in, it’s a needed breath of fresh air to keep the smog of Progressive thinking and godless convictions contained and revealed for what it genuinely is.

How do you refute an argument based on facts?

With a platform based on Truth.

Well done, Sheriff Clarke…

Leave a Reply