Of course, liberals have no corner on this behavior. At the same time, it is my personal opinion -- which I'm willing to admit may very likely be mistaken and biased -- that those of the liberal viewpoint are indeed more prone to this irrational argumentation behavior.
Perhaps the reason is that many people do not analyze things rationally. The average run of men do not think in syllogisms. If you follow their "reasoning" process it is a very odd pastiche of logical fallicies.
Part of the problem is that often people are debating about things they know very little about. For example, consider those who debate about gun control from the anti-gun side. Ask yourself, how much does the average anti-gunner know about (1) guns, (2) the use of guns, for example in self protection, (3) existing gun control laws, and (4) the effects of gun control laws or the statistics of crime. Generally, the anti-gun people are very poorly versed in these important areas. "You don't need 'assault weapons' to hunt!" Well, maybe not, although I might choose to hunt with what qualifies as an assault weapon. Maybe it would be nice to have an 'assault weapon' for self defense. "No way! Why would you need an 'assault weapon for self defense!?" These kind of arguments indicate that these people just don't know much about the subject and just haven't thought about it much. Maybe people in New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina wished they had an 'assault weapon' in the closet after the looting began? Maybe people in San Francisco wished they had an 'assault weapon' in the closet to protect their stores after the 1989 earthquake (wasn't there looting after that event?) or the Korean store owners whose stores were looted in LA after the Rodney King verdict? They know as much about guns as I do about hip-hop music (maybe less, because I at least hear hip-hop music when my kids play it).
There is a peculiar double standard of the liberals. They fume about free speech rights and then kick out the dissenter identified above. Free speech is OK, so long as you don't espouse any ideas that are contrary to their right thinking views of things. I am perplexed at their great interest and sensitivity to civil rights -- the rights of the peole in the face of a government putting limits on their behavior -- and their lust to constrain the second amendment. The second amendment is a civil right. It is a right of the common man versus the rights of the king, the baron, the duke, the millionaire.
I don't want to pretend that I am Mr super rationality. I don't know everything and am ignorant about many things. But I try to keep my nose out of things I don't know anything about.
I have been booted off more political forums than I can count over the years and as originally described in the opening post of this thread, I always remained civil and backed up any statement with fact, unless it was my opion of course.
One particularly funny boot happened during a debate on gay marraige. When I posted a response that said "I support gay marraige.....as long as both chicks are hot", the moderator went batshit and sent me a scathing email along with an invitation to carry my insults elsewhere.
My basic observations are that most of use who consider ourselves as conservative debate with facts and most of those who consider themselves liberal(or progressive) debate from an emotional standpoint. Anyone who took debate in HS or College knows you NEVER get emotional during a debate. Passionate about your position? Sure, but leave the whining and name calling out.
Bring them in on a string. I love this term, if you want to be successful on calling in Elk, try not to just sound like the other caller. We all laugh at each other when we are practicing Elk calling at home or while camping. When I first started calling in Elk, I had no idea what i was doing and it's funny how many I could call in. The biggest Bull that I have called in to date was actually my first. I was making cow calls and screwing it up big time. But it's obvious I didn't screw up...