Comments by "Hugh Jorgan" (@HughJorgan1) on "Alex Jones' Errors Are No Different Than MSM Misreports on Sandy Hook: Defense Attorney" video.

It’s not “look over there”. It’s called making a counter argument using examples of a similar topic or concept. It’s the 3rd best way to argue or debate according to Graham’s Hierarchy. It’s also a great way to point out hypocrisy.
7
@Saje …And by the way, you might be interested to know you and “Pro Crastinator” are at Level 3 of Graham’s Hierarchy. You’re criticizing my tone or way of communicating rather than addressing the root topic, which in this case would be my reference to the way people on the left argue a point. An effective contradiction or counter argument you both could’ve used (rather than incorrectly claiming I was being insulting or using ad hominem) would be saying that, in your experience, it’s people on the right who don’t know how to get beyond level 1 or 2. Even better, you could provide examples or data to back up your argument. But we both know there’s far more people on the left guilty of using nothing but insults and ad hominem in an argument or debate. There’s also a famous saying that kinda fits this topic: “To anger conservatives tell them lies, to anger liberals tell them facts”
4
@Pro Crastinator ..I was dead serious. I’m a huge Hitchens fan. One of the greatest minds of our time. If I was being ironic or sarcastic I would’ve added a winky face ;)
3
@Elegant Jihad ..There’s 7 levels of effective debate/argument in Graham’s Hierarchy. From worst to best: 1. Using strictly insults. 2. Using strictly ad hominem. 3. Attacking the tone or style of communication of the other person. 4. Contradiction 5. Counter argument, which almost always involves using examples of a similar topic or concept. It also includes pointing out double standards (also known as hypocrisy). 6. Refutation using examples, quotes, etc (it could be argued Jones’ lawyer was also achieving this level) 7. Completely refuting the central point of the argument. I think more people need to learn these principles, particularly those on the left. In my experience, they usually have great difficulty getting beyond level 1 or 2.
2
@jay322bn …I always love a reference to the late, great Christopher Hitchens! One of the all time best at debating and arguing a point.
2
@Saje …We disagree what constitutes an insult. As a man I wouldn’t be remotely insulted by your statement. I would just think “Well, I have a lot of compassion so unfortunately Saje has dealt with some men who don’t”. See how that works? Now back to my “level 1 and 2” statement. Applying the same logic, if you were on the left and always argued at level 4 or higher you shouldn’t see my statement as insulting. Another tactic you could’ve originally used as part of a counter argument would be to call my claim a generalization, which you did in your most recent comment with the “tiny fraction” point. Had you called my original comment a generalization and perhaps mentioned that, in your experience, it’s those on the right who resort to insults you would’ve made a point difficult for me to refute. Instead, you got stuck at level 3. I hope you learned something today. Always stay at level 4 or higher! Thanks for the chat, have a good one.
2
@prof.crastinator …Lol, thanks for proving all my points! And you’re still stuck at level 3. Worse, you lowered yourself to levels 1 and 2. I encourage you to study the facts I presented on Grahams Hierarchy and learn about effective ways you can disagree with people. Have a good one.
2
@prof.crastinator ..You make a fair point on how I presented Graham’s Hierarchy. It is indeed supposed to be a pyramid. I shouldn’t have numbered the 7 levels, or at least I should’ve reversed the numbering. You can learn a lot from “Seje” in this section. Like you he/she started off at level 3 regarding my original comment. She said it was an “insult” to those on the left. After we chatted for a bit he/she quickly moved beyond level 3 and got into levels 4 and 5 (contradiction and counter argument). For example, Seje pointed out my original comment was a generalization, which it was. I congratulated Seje on her good counter argument. Meanwhile, you remained obsessed with the fact you were called out for being at the lower levels of disagreement/debate. You just dug yourself deeper and deeper, resorting to calling me a “troll” numerous times. I didn’t read every comment, let’s just say it was the worst possible approach you could’ve taken because it proved all my original points correct. I’ve been wrong many times. When it happens I just admit it and move on. It appears this is a lesson you’ve yet to learn. Hopefully this experience will help. And if nothing else, you at least know about Graham’s Hierarchy now. It will help you considerably in the future, particularly if you’re tempted to make leftist arguments using only insults or ad hominem. Thanks for the chat and I’m glad to have educated you. I won’t be replying to any subsequent comments as I have a lot more people to educate. Have a good one.
2
@David Fischer …So true. Hitch and Jones in the same room would’ve been gold. Or imagine Hitchens debating Shapiro or Michael Knowles! Or Crowder. Pick any topic and I’d have paid big money to watch. Hitchens would’ve destroyed the recent leftist movement in our country while at the same time destroying religious conservatism. And if he was alive he’d still be vigorously defending our Constitution despite being born in the UK. I like to trot out ‘Hitchens’ Razor’ every now and then. It’s applicable in so many discussions/debates nowadays.
1
@Pro Crastinator ..Oh now I get it. I thought you were talking about my Hitchens comment. When I stated that those on the left rarely get by level 1 or 2 I wasn’t involved in a debate with another person. I was simply stating a fact based on my experience. Therefore it’s not ad hominem.
1
@Saje …Lol, nope…it wasn’t an insult either. Again, I wasn’t in a debate with someone. I simply made a factual statement about my experiences debating those on the left.
1
@j.thomasgough4284 …Nope, it’s pointing out the hypocrisy of treating one batch of lies or misinformation different from another batch of lies or misinformation. It’s a completely valid form of counter argument.
1
@j.thomasgough4284 …A VERY expensive whoopsie lol.
1
Or how about media lies on Russia collusion?
1