politics

Nope. The mere fact that they are intentionally arguing in bad faith is proof of that. Their entire reason for making the offer to "discuss" is to trap you in one of their "gotcha" moments, so they can use it to prove their claim. They will never acknowledge their mistakes and will simply talk in circles. Typical grifter/troll approach to politics.

I like the anlaogy that debating with a MAGoo is like playing chess with a pigeon. All they'll do is shit all over the table and then strut around like they won.

The Gish Gallop is an actual technique the Right loves to use. Just pour out an endless stream of lies, half lies, utter fantasies, and nonsense in order to force the opposition to spend time refuting stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Theoretically, that's what structured debate and courtroom practice is for. But these days I sincerely doubt anyone, much less a politician, would agree to such a thing, nor would it be easily "television worthy"

That's the dream.

In practice, very no.

Very unlikely. I think I see where you're headed.

You might want to check out The Alt Right Playbook video series as it kind of scratches that itch.

Bad faith actors have many tricks up their sleeves. For example, they'll gish gallop you-- overwhelming you with too many claims to counter. And before you finish discussing one claim they'll throw a load more at you.

Also their concept of winning is very different from those of a good faith debater.

I think the real answer is to discuss in good faith, in person, with people you know and share mutual respect. Because when people know what the right wing is about and know what the dog whistles are, then they see right through the pathetic tactics of the right wing extremists.

TD;DR:
Before jumping to conclusions realize that:
1-6: incest ain't so bad.

Thanks for posting that. I think it sums up the double speak nicely.

Eh, the shitheads have been arguing that slavery was good for the enslaved since the time of slavery. E.g.

Bishop Stephen Elliott, of Georgia, wrote that critics of slavery should “consider whether, by their interference with this institution, they may not be checking and impeding a work which is manifestly Providential. For nearly a hundred years the English and American Churches have been striving to civilize and Christianize Western Africa, and with what result? Around Sierra Leone, and in the neighborhood of Cape Palmas, a few natives have been made Christians, and some nations have been partially civilized; but what a small number in comparison with the thousands, nay, I may say millions, who have learned the way to Heaven and who have been made to know their Savior through the means of African slavery! At this very moment there are from three to four millions of Africans, educating for earth and for Heaven in the so vilified Southern States—learning the very best lessons for a semi-barbarous people—lessons of self-control, of obedience, of perseverance, of adaptation of means to ends; learning, above all, where their weakness lies, and how they may acquire strength for the battle of life. These considerations satisfy me with their condition, and assure me that it is the best relation they can, for the present, be made to occupy.”

Adapted from The Great Stain: Witnessing American Slavery by Noel Rae. Copyright © 2018 by Noel Rae.

It's a twisted argument now, just as it was then, but it's hardly new.