Essay:The Debating Skills of Sir Andrew Schlafly
|This essay is a direct copy from the Conservapedia pages cited. The comment threads were compiled by SuperJosh. Please comment only on the talk page.|
As many of you are no doubt aware, our chum over at Conservapedia Mr Andrew Schlafly is something of a legendary figure when it comes to debating. He has proven, on numerous occassions, his outstanding ability to leave the most belligerent of dissenting liberals in the dust, paralysed with shock at how they have inevitably been living their lives in a close minded and altogether intolerant manner.
We are privileged to have access to Mr Schlafly's pearls of wisdom, and so I invite you, my humble compadres, to bask in the glory of Mr Andrew Schlafly's debating skills.
 With an anonymous user...
Yes, I did think that was hostility, everything on this website that doesn’t abide by your conservative doctrine is greeted with hostility. You mention Andy’s repetition of opening your mind – well you my friend as well as everyone else here that is in charge have minds that are more closed than any other person I have ever encountered. You are trying to tell me that turning off your lights is a coordinated attack on the western world?!? And I’m the warped one?!? Give me a break! And I know that you are going to block me now. That is what you people do. You encounter someone who does not agree with you, so the best thing to do is just get rid of them. That’s not closed minded at all. Maybe I’m the one trying to OPEN YOUR minds to alternative ways of thinking, because you people are trapped in a bubble of ridiculousness and idiotic ideas. Open your mind! I turned off my lights, along with millions of people around the world. You want to leave yours burning all night – good for you. Now tell me how global warming doesn’t exist, or how homosexuality is a disease, or how abortion causes breast cancer, or how gun control decreases crime, or how God exists. Guess what, I am a socialist, Atheist, Canadian. And this site is no longer worth my time. So long. Enjoy your fantasy world.
- Thanks for the typical liberal rant. One can tell just by its style.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
- Can you define that style for me andy? Could the style be reflective of being completely dumbfounded by the 'theories' of turning off lights being a cooridnated attack on the western world, because that is what I'm thinking.
- I'm referring to your long-winded lack of substance. Your use of many words to say nothing.--Andy Schlafly 22:04, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
- Your use of few words is lacking substance as well andy. How does it say more than I did?
- It's the high word:substance ratio that characterizes the liberal every time. You're right about my little substance in this exchange, but I take few words to say it.--Andy Schlafly 22:21, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
 And with ThomasW...
I just find it amazing how people can read posts by TK and IScott and not realize they're parodists. So be it. ThomasW 08:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- Oh wise one, ThomasW, please grace us with more of your illuminating insights here! Seriously, let's see if you can make a substantive contribution of value, Thomas, before you start lecturing to us.--Andy Schlafly 08:54, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
We have a "Weekly Featured Article," "Conservapedia's Highlighted Article," "Guest World Treasure," "Article of the Year," "Masterpiece of the Week," "The Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin" and a bunch of other things on the front page. Frankly, it's ugly. Any chance we could clean some stuff up? And could we start adding dates to our news articles?--DReynolds 00:51, 1 March 2009 (EST)
- Oh, how liberals love to censor and control!--Andy Schlafly 09:16, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I'm a bleeding heart liberal, an atheist and worse, but I leave that at the door when I enter Conservapedia. Here all that matters to me is whether what Conservapedia says is factually correct and well stated. I apologise to Karajou for the offence--I just wanted to suggest wording that would be easier to understand. --TonySidaway 19:45, 26 February 2009 (EST)
- Tony, virtually all that you've been doing here is talk, talk, talk, of a nit-picky nature. Then you seem to claim that you found "errors" in Conservapedia. I haven't seen a single insight from you yet.
- We apply our 90/10 rule to nit-picky atheists too. You're in egregious violation of it. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 12:06, 27 February 2009 (EST)
First let me say that I do not support public health care in the states. That being said, the news item's subject is horribly incorrect as far as factual data is concerned. I have come to despise the media on all sides for actions represented in the linked article that twist facts into hideous parodies of what they once were in order to promote the journalist's views. There are very few honest journalists left in my opinion. I did not complete my research into the various claims of the article as the misinformation I found from even a cursory investigation caused me to lose my stomach for the process. In short, the article itself is an aberration of truth the extreme. (1.) It claims a "recent" study which is from the year 2000 and uses articles as citation which include statistics from 1978-1989. (2.) The news headline credits the "Head of the World Health Organization" as the source of the proceeding statistics. This is false. The statics given come from the editorial "Cancer Survival in Britain" written by Karol Sikora in 199 who was the Vice President of the clinical research (oncology) at the time and has never been the organization's head. It's the same as claiming one of the admins here, who posted four years ago, was the "Head of Conservapedia".
(3.) The news headline claims that "...The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care." Once again, this a the Conservapedia news headline, being taken from a Walter Williams article,"Sweden's government health care" which took it from "Delay, Denial and Dilution," by the IEA which took it from "Cancer survival in Britain" by WHO. It's like that middle school game where someone says a phrase at one end of the classroom and it is whispered down the line, person to person, until the end result is completely different from the original phrase. So why not just read the original article? Sikora takes the numbers from data collected during 1978-91989 and publishes the 25,000 figure in 1999. A news headline saying an organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year is like me saying that an organization found that Conservapedia has an average of only four hundred outside views a day...from a statistic taken a week after Conservapedia was made. (4.) "because of under provision of care" If you read the article cited then you will find the the reason behind the low number is not assured, but it is speculated. And the speculation is one of poor communication and practices, however that same article states that diagnosis is usually quick and accurate and that delays of more than 2 months between diagnosis and care are exceedingly rare, emphasizing that the medical system offers reasonable response time. He further states expectations of the average wait time dropping to 2 weeks within the year. The cited source for that portion gives evidence directly refuting the assesment of long wait times mentioned in the headline being a factor at all. But once again, that was nearly a decade ago, so it is currently an obsolete assesment. I did not bother checking up on the kidney dialysis point, as I said I lost the stomach. As for the rest, a truthful headline would be "Former Vice president of WHO's Oncology dept. estimated that from 1979-1989 UK's cancer survival rate was closer to Poland's rate than Germany's rate and was below standard. He further said that if the UK could establish the best treatment in Europe that 25,000 lives could be saved. He pointed the finger directly at cancer care quality and intergration" It's not as biting as what is currently posted but it has the befit of being 100% true. I am opposed to public health care in the US and I would love to see some real articles arguing the benefits of the privatized systems and the failings of the socialized system. The article posted, however, is pure hack. Apologies for spelling and grammatical errors, I was in a hurry.--Nicholas 15:47, 5 March 2009 (EST)
- UK has low cancer survival rates. Enough said.--Andy Schlafly 18:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I'm not entirely sure about the wisdom of beating the drum of black clothing, given that many clergy (especially those from the Catholic and Orthodox churches), wear the same color, as do Benedictine monks if my memory serves me right.--Ieuan 12:40, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks for serving the role of the liberal denier, Ieuan! The black clothing worn by youths is obviously serving a different purpose from that worn by clergy. Yes, intent does matter.--Andy Schlafly 12:42, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
- Actually my point had nothing to do with whether the shooter had an anti-christian motive or not. I was just warning that 'bad guys wear black hats' statements could leave Conservapedia and yourself open to a great deal of ridicule and derision. Hopefully it won't, but given that the possibility exists I felt it necessary to extend the piece of advice above. As owner of this site it is entirely up to whether you take that advice or not. Either way the consequences are yours to deal with, I have done my duty by pointing out the possiblity exists.--Ieuan 13:52, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
- Ieuan, the truth is sometimes ridiculed. That seems to impress you greatly, but we'll stick with the truth here. Thanks for your misplaced concern.--Andy Schlafly 13:54, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
 And then some...
I find it fascinating that the one aspect of this event you choose to focus on is what the shooter was wearing, which you automatically equate to being anti-Christian. This information might not even be correct. According to the CBC, the shooter was dressed in ‘combat gear.’ So maybe you should wait for all the facts before you jump to conclusions. Oh wait, that is what conservapedia does. Maybe you could have focused on the fact that his father owned 16 guns, which is where he got guns used in the shooting. Oh wait, that would go against the ridiculous conservative insight of more guns leading to less crime. That’s another fascinating thing about the news feature, how you use tragic events like this to propagate your own ideologies. Enough is enough. – conservativedude.
- "Conservativedude", your rant with your misleading name persuades no one. Most young mass murderers have been anti-Christians, just as this one was.--Andy Schlafly 16:30, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
But, surely that would tarnish the 0 mental problems in all the contributors statistic? Would you change it to 1 mental problem out of all the contributors? Or by mental problem do you mean mental problems such as atheism (denying what religion despite it being an innate quality!) and homosexuality? Or maybe you wouldn't define ADD as a mental problem, more a mental condition? GFasten 19:58, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
- Lots of questions by you, "GFasten". Contribute more, and more substantively, and you won't be so bewildered in the future.--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't think that Telegraph article you're posting on the Main Page is appropriate. First, the Telegraph is anything but liberal and has always been considered the most conservative of all UK daily broadsheets, with an almost exclusively an older, suburban Tory Party readership. This MORI poll shows that 64% of its readership is Conservative (with the uppercase 'C'), making it clearly the most conservative UK newspaper. (Incidentally, it's also the largest selling broadsheet). Secondly, the article itself is clearly mocking Conservapedia. It's well known that the British sense of humour often doesn't translate across the Atlantic (and vice-versa is often also true, btw), and this is obviously one of those cases. KBinbota 13:31, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- Your two complaints contradict each other, and cancel each other out. The headline here is correct. Britain has become a very liberal place, as your own perspective illustrates.--Andy Schlafly 13:48, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 And with Toffeeman...
The strange usage of the term "conservative" may render the headline accurate. It may still be considered, putting it politely "inappropriate". Conservapedia is used by the Telegraph as the "benchmark" for new media, in the same way that an IQ of 70 is used as a benchmark for "retarded".--Toffeeman 15:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- No, Toffeeman, your "idiotic" analogy doesn't work. It does reveal your (undeserved) arrogance as a liberal, however.--Andy Schlafly 18:30, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 And with JosephHKL...
"The BNP might get my vote for its position alone on education." Really? Even though your own article describes the BNP as a neo-nazi organization? Interesting...JosephHKL 19:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- JosephHKL, your comments are incoherent, except you did run to try to use the racist label just as predicted. Liberals are sooooo predictable.--Andy Schlafly 14:33, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
 And with JoshuaZ...
Regardless of the issue of where the Telegraph stands on the political spectrum, the statement on the mainpage is misleading. What we have here is a single blog entry by one of the Telegraph's tech writers. The entire reference to Conservapedia is to note that "Like Conservapedia, the encyclopedia that has no time for reality's liberal bias, PopModal offers a "conservative alternative" to YouTube." How that becomes the Telegraph using Conservapedia as a benchmark to describe "other new media alternatives" isn't at all clear to me. If you mean that Shane is in a throw-away remark mentioning Conservapedia as another example of a website which ignores reality then that would be one thing. However, making claims about Conservapedia being used as a "benchmark" or making claims that this is about "other new media alternatives" in a general sense is at best inaccurate. JoshuaZ 12:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
- JoshuaZ, not much is "clear to" a determined atheist. I've noticed a decline in the level of your contributions just in the two years that this site has existed. Your edit summary for your above rant was "um what?". I often see good minds spiral into decay once they fall for atheism.
- Being dumb is fun for the easily amused. But it's sad to watch it occur in someone who had greater potential. Help yourself by opening your mind, before it's too late.--Andy Schlafly 14:43, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
 And with JHanson...
Andy, did you really mean it when you said you would vote for the BNP? I think you should retract that. The BNP, along with its predecessor party the NF, is a neo-nazi party, with a holocaust denier as its leader. This is even documented by the article on the BNP at Conservapedia. Take it on the chin for once and admit you made a grave error in saying you would vote for them.
P.S: Actually comment on what I've said, not punctuation, "coherency", "close-mindedness" or "predictable liberalism". JHanson 15:31, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
- JHanson, you lied about what I said, and you launched into more predictable race-baiting by a liberal. Improve the entry on BNP to substantiate your smears if you like, but don't resort to what I predicted liberals would do by falsely accusing others of racism.--Andy Schlafly 15:58, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
 With DLerner...
there are no real differences between boys and girls Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals several differences, especially in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
- You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
humans are just another type of animal As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of mammal, and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
- Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
all there is is what you see Not true, we teach about bacteria too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were they responsible for mental illness? DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
- You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
death can somehow be good We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
- Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
 And with an anonymous user who was quite possibly DLerner...
classroom prayer would promote mental stability Says who? Maybe you should add [Citation Needed]?
- I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
 And with Carptrash...
I saved the best 'til last...
I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. Carptrash 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
- Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
- No, his post has 119 words. Kallium 09:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
All in all, it's pretty obvious that Andy Schlafly has some damn fine debating techniques up his sleeve. He not only manages to prove his opponents undeniably wrong without wasting energy on mere evidence or a reply with more than two sentences, but he seems to also convert them to Christianity, a feat which gains you an extra five Jesus points!
Don't mess with him.