Today I accidentally got roped into a debate with an ignorant pseudo-patriot. I usually avoid trying to win such debates for the simple reason that, when arguing, dumb people and smart people view “victory” on such different wavelengths.
A person of normal intelligence will concede defeat when, for example, somebody presents irrefutable evidence against him. But for dumb people, “being wrong” is to arguing, what first base is to having an orgasm. It is just the beginning.
First, the dumb one has to catch up in the argument and realize that he is indeed a jackass (something his opponent had already figured out about him). Next, the dumb person needs to proceed through a series of alternative arenas in which one can feel superior, thereby canceling out the relevance of his inferiority and wrongness in the present dialog. They do this by comparing attributes the smarter person has long since transcended worrying about:
Who makes more money?
Who has the nicer car?
Who has the more attractive partner?
Who has bigger muscles?
But what happens when, in addition to having the facts on your side, you trump a dumb person on all of the above categories? Or, worse yet, when a dumb person realizes you really don’t care that he makes more money than you or that he spends it less wisely? That’s the best part–they’re mind screeches to a halt like an outdated computer program not net privy to all the complicated new shit.
By that point, obviously, it’s time to fight!
And only once the dumb person has been incapacitated or knocked unconscious does he admit (through silence or incoherence) that, indeed, he was wrong and you were right about Iraq.