That's what I told a dude on Facebook today. Considering he was allegedly a conservative, I'm sure he took it as a polite insult, which means I succeeded. But having to say that to him exposes the fallacy in the statement. I have bumbled in to arguments with people of every stripe on FB, and I would imagine the reason why it struck me to phrase it that way was because of the side I usually argue from. But I see now that there are people like this guy in every group. Let me explain how to- for want of a better term (or sheer laziness in formulating one) argue like a Facebook "liberal":
1. You must come into the discussion with some self-righteous comment or post. "Of course, I know you all will agree when I say..." must be the air you give off. It also helps if your response is a smug statement of how you bear no responsibility whatsoever for the bad consequences of your position. (In this case, the alleged conservative felt that he was in the right and I was stupid for voting for Romney when he wasn't the perfect candidate that came down from conservative heaven, and that I may as well not have voted and just let Obama screw things up worse.)
2. To make it fun, your victim must be someone that you would actually have common ground with if you weren't just out for a fight. That way, you can totally frustrate them by ignoring the fact that you agree on anywhere from 40-90% of the topic. My Dad was a master at this. And he didn't live long enough to dream of Facebook.
3. When the other person makes a comment that expresses their disagreement- no matter how much they disagree- you must form a self-righteous, self-serving, very subjective question for them to answer. This is obstensibly to find out what the other person is thinking, but is actually to be used later on so you can claim, "You never answered my question."
4. Prior to the "You didn't answer" part, read the other person's response, focusing only on buzz words so you aren't infected by any foreign logic. Reply with, "you are an idiot because you disagree with me," in such a way that they know they are insulted, but just polite enough to encourage another attempt of theirs to talk reason to you.
5. If this has provoked a less polite response like this:
6. Now you separate the men from the boys, victim-wise. Some will find a link to disprove your theory. Others, such as myself, will find exactly where you answered the question already, and paste it into the next comment. Others will now refer to the picture above. You only now have to deal with the first two groups.
7A. To deal with group #1, simply find any article from MSNBC that deals even tangently with the process, knowing full well that anyone with an ounce of sense will say, "If they watch MSNBC, there's nobody home anyway," and bail. Then you can triumphantly put some stupid self-glorifying comment in as the last word and pat yourself on the back.
7B. For group number 2, it's time to change the rules, as my guy did.
"uhhhhhhhhhhhhh... yeah fine.
Trouble being, your repetitive rant has nothing to do with the reality of what I posted. Fixate much?"
Trouble being, it might not have been so repetitive if you hadn't kept asking the same question I answered every time you asked, amigo. Trouble is, the reality of what you posted was not something I agree with, and all your badgering isn't going to bring me there. Trouble is, your attitude in this case was, "If I can't vote for fill-in-the-blank, I'm not going to vote at all, and continue to bash the poor bastard that got elected as if I did." But you see here, he has changed the rules- he has created a subject that never existed- and still doesn't as far as I can see- and says, "This is what I've been saying all along." In other words, rewrite history so that this argument that never existed becomes the argument you just won. Now you can post your stupid self-glorifying last word and pat yourself on the back.
And that, my friends, is how to "argue like a FB liberal"- or conservative, or atheist, or religious zealot, or what have you.