There is a saying, "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I've found this to be true, especially when dealing with the immature and underdeveloped brains in the Progressive movement. I do not say this in the pejorative sense, but in the reality of arguing with anyone who thinks "Nuh-Uh!" is the penultimate, logical response to any argument which they cannot defend.
The entire foundation of Progressive Liberalism is based on a childish desire that everyone likes everyone else. Which has lead them to racism, classism, and worse, bullying when they don't get their way. Their sense of entitlement overrides any part of their brain from accepting the moral bankruptcy of their philosophy. (Oh my, fifty cent words early on a Saturday morning!)
It's like the filthy, bearded fellow on the morning news show screaming the moral superiority of "organically grown food". It's more expensive and does not taste better. Study after study proves this over and again, yet he stands there yelling and screaming, spittle spewing everywhere because you chose to pick up a bag or regularly grown oranges over the more expensive and uglier looking organically grown ones. Pave paradise? Hardly. DDT could wipe out tons of insect born disease in developing countries, but it can't be used because of the Global Warming like science that went about destroying the insecticide. It's been proven that the "Silent Spring" fever of these rabid hippies is pure bullshit. Yet, they continue to throw out the erroneous and falsified "facts" as if they are correct. DDT and Global Warming are two of the biggest scientific hoaxes perpetrated upon the world, ever.
Yet, our supposed moral superiors think that screaming lies will carry them through the fight? Why not? We've allowed them to get away with it for over 100 years. Why? Because we think that it would be impolite and unreasonable to defend the truth. Why? Because they tell us it's wrong to question their oh, so moral superiority or their self-appointed expertise on any given subject. This sort of irrational blindness lead to a person such as Barack Obama being elected president of the USA despite every indication that he wasn't capable of doing more than organizing a birthday party for a 5 year old.
If you cannot calmly, quietly, logically and reasonably defend your position on any given thing, then perhaps arguing is nor your forte or you're wrong. Emotion should never carry any argument. This is why we hire attorneys to represent our interests in certain things. They can defend us without being all bogged down with the emotions of being caught up in the middle of it all. Their brains can therefore think logically and find the truth of the matter.
If you are ever tempted to open your mouth while your brain is colored with the haze of emotionality, you need to immediately close it, because I can guarantee, something stupid and regretful will come out. It's why we used to be encouraged to "cool off" rather than argue with others. It makes us seem cold to others who operate entirely on emotions. However, when you do rein in your emotions and stop and actually think, you will, most oftentimes, find that you were being led down the primrose path to a moral beating by people unworthy of your time or attention. It's the reason I rant at the TV or monitor when I see something offense to my sensibilities. I vent. Like a volcano making escape valves before an eruption. However, my outrage, my molten magma, is still there under the surface, roiling and simmering, but my brain is functioning and thinking and trying to put ducks into rows so that when I finally do erupt, my argument is logically sound and not mired in Keith Olbermann screaming fits and Chris Matthews spittle.
Defending the truth is much like the myth of Paladins. Your fiery sword is logic of your argument, surgically dissecting the lies of the other side. Your moral superiority is from knowing that the truth does set you free and standing on your own judgment and reason carries the day, not screaming fits.
And think about it, who are you most likely to listen to? A man calmly expressing his point, logically, reasonably or Ed Schultz screaming in your face telling you that you're wrong because you're a poophead?