Points added for being a good sport with a sense of humor if nothing else.

I hasten to add Mr. Evil was not being charged with radicalism, liberalism, etc. but acted as a good introduction into choice of words. 'In fact I'm goingi back up the top and award points.

No wonder it's Radical Reasoning....

Here it is..

Perhaps you've scrupulously tried to avoid logical fallacies when debating some topic or other. Forget that. Such retrograde pre-post-modern thinking no longer applies. Our neo-modern age has progressed beyond hard logic and cold reason to paralogic and surreason. Here are the Rules of Logic, Reason and Debate for the 21st Century. Learn them, know them, use them. You have nothing to lose but your chains of logic.

Win any argument using Paralogic and Surreason

FOUR SIMPLE METHODS
Self-evident Self-evidence: Any statement containing "no doubt," "obviously," "it goes without saying," or "everyone knows" is accepted as proven. Nothing more need be said nor evidence produced. No doubt it goes without saying everyone knows this is obviously true.

Circulating Circularity: You can back up your own argu­ment with your own argument by repeating it. The more you repeat it the more true it is. Again, the more you repeat it the more true it is. And remember, the more you repeat it the more true it is.

Sonic Persuasion: The louder the argument, the stronger the argument. In writing, all caps, underlining, bolding, italics, and exclamation marks add weight of truth to any statement. This is ABSOLUTELY,POSITIVELY TRUE!!!!

Frickin Fact: Along the lines of sonic persuasion, you can strengthen your argument simply by adding the word "frickin" (or equivalent). People may question what you say is true, but there can be no doubt when it's frickin true.

The word "frickin" (or equivalent) is truly magical. It's a helper word that makes any statement more powerful and any joke more funny. In fact, a statement that's not funny at all will be hilarious to some people just by inserting "frickin" (or equivalent) in it. How, why? Nobody frickin knows.

With these four simple methods you can prove just about anything. Combining them is a quadruple threat that can't be beat. Just repeat an assertion loudly and often until it goes without saying it's frickin true and you're home free. Disprov­ing your opponent is equally easy with the tactics explained below.

FOUR EASY TACTICS
Nymtimidation: Call your opponent stupid. This is almost idiot-proof because how do they prove they're not? – Recite the times tables? Name the state capitals? Produce a Mensa membership card? If they respond to the accusation they'll look, well, stupid. If they don't respond they'll look guilty. You win either way. Anyway, they disagree and you're obviously right, therefore, ergo, ipso facto, QED, they must be stupid.

Alternatively you can call them heartless, evil, phony, whatever. Question their motives, what's in their hearts and minds and impossible to disprove. Are you beginning to get the idea? Call them anything you like. Once a label sticks the opposition is rendered impotent.

Insanitizing: Use the following simple phrase to reply to anything your opponent says, "Are you insane?" In a flash everything your opponent says is dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic and not worth listening to.

You can also use mad, nuts, crazy, delusional, or 'out of your mind' in the phrase. These aren't as strong as insane, so punch it up with 'stark-raving' or 'frickin' and it will do the trick.

Boo!-lean Logic: This is pretty much insanitizing plus. Crazy is bad, but crazy scared is worse. Simply attach the suffix "-ophobe" to the general topic under discussion, call your opponent that and, viola! – they have no counter-argument, they have paranoia.

Full Stop Logic: You can successfully prevent any possible rebuttal of any point you make by simply adding the word "period" after your remark. A period closes the sentence and the topic because period means the end and there can't be anything after the end, the end is the end. Case closed. Period.

Using these four tactics you can defeat any assertion or proposal your opponent makes no matter how well argued or thought out on their part. After all, why listen to a stupid, evil X-ophobe? Are you frickin insane? They're wrong. Period.

ADVANCED TERMS
Seductive Logic: If the parts of the premise are true, the conclusion is proven. A direct causal link need only be implied. Since the premises are true, then by implication any implied causal link must be true, too. Anyway, being implied the causal link is unstated and so your opponent can't disprove something that isn't there, can they?

Unductive Logic: If the evidence doesn't agree with the conclusion, the evidence is wrong and must be adjusted to fit the conclusion or ignored. Unductive logic is particularly useful as it makes disproving any assertion on your part impossible. Contrary evidence is simply wrong and those using it are liars or insane imbeciles. Or there's been a cover-up, which is impossible to disprove since all contrary evidence is part of the cover-up.

Nonductive Logic: If all else fails, call it a paradox. Non­ductive logic is your all-purpose escape clause. A paradox means you're still right, you just haven't figured out why. At least not yet. That's the key – you'll know in the future. That's what computer models are for. Let's see your opponent disprove proof from the future. They can't! Ha-ha, you win again.

THE ULTIMATE TOOL
Power Proof: While all the above methods and tactics are highly effective, there is one sure-fire, guaranteed way to never lose a debate. Which is to never have a debate. This merely requires the power to silence the opposition. If you control the government, suppress opposing views. If you control the money, only fund your own views. If you control the media, don't allow opposing views to be heard.

If people have a choice between A and A they're going to choose A every time. If folks don't know there is an option B or C or whatever, well, how can you lose? It's easy as A-B-C, only without B and C.

You might think these simple rules are a little too simple, too simplistic, too simple-minded even. But they work. Despite what Lincoln said about how you can't fool all the people all the time, you only need to fool most of people most of the time. Besides, everyone knows your opponents are frickin, insane, MORONS, MORONS, MORONS!!!! Period.

*
In case you've found the above to be too much to digest and recall in the heat of verbal battle, there is another way.

Win arguments

Four Simpler, Easier, Advancedier Methods
Wayne’s Way: After any sentence spoken by your opponent, simply say, "Not."

The Eyes Have It: Hold up one hand at shoulder level with palm toward your opponent. Turn head slightly, roll eyes and say, "Nya-a-a-ah."

Hand Jibe: As your opponent speaks, hold up one hand at shoulder level as if it were a hand puppet. Work the hand puppet mouth while saying, "Blah, blah, blah…"

Might Makes Right: Punch 'em in the mouth. That shuts 'em up. Argument over.


UPDATE:
THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED AND REVISED by order of Comrade Lavrentiy Beria. The underling responsible for the previously published unauthorized version of this article is being dealt with by Comrade Beria himself. You will never hear from this reactionary stooge again. In fact, he never existed. Furthermore, the previous version of this article never existed. The editors make no apologies and deny everything.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Will Beria is Lavrentiy Beria's third cousin once removed (literally). He has now been allowed a limited quota of internet digits to run his personal website here: www.TerryColon.com

in the meantime here is another version that's if anything even better.

Liberal logic
Liberal-logic-101-519.jpg

Liberal logic is a term used to describe arguments made by some liberals that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical. Here are more than 100 examples:

Pope Francis is taller than "Fidel Castro," Obama is much taller than Pope Francis, but the real Fidel was taller than Obama. Obama spent several days in Cuba in 2016 yet never met or even mentioned Fidel during the much-publicized visit.
No matter what happens in the weather, global warming must have caused it
Insist on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-Christian, while promoting censorship for anything which is Christian
If a crime is committed against a member of a predominantly Democratic group, then it's a hate crime; if committed against a member of a mostly Republican group, then it is not
Claim something is true merely because a (nearly bankrupt) newspaper said so (see appeal to authority)
Obama, whose statements and activities are Islamic and does not attend church, is somehow a Christian while Thomas Jefferson, a regular churchgoer, was not
Assuming what is to be proved, as in implausibly assuming that radioactive decay has somehow been constant in order to claim that the Earth is old.
Claim that liberals' viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents
Claim that switching from heterosexual to homosexual is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
Insist that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it[1]
Pretend to base their opinion on an unverifiable or unusual personal experience, when real logic would be a better guide
Criticize Christians for literal interpretations of Genesis, but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the liberal ideology[2]
Belief that a correlation and/or causation (e.g., between atheism and suicide) can be disproved by a counterexample (e.g., one atheist who remained sane)
Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
Never admitting shame for liberal behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves.
Circular reasoning as in demanding censorship of creation science and intelligent design in schools and scientific journals, while simultaneously citing the resulting lack of those views in schools and journals as proof against it![3]
Americans should "move on" past the misconduct of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about Republican candidates
Highly implausible assumptions in "if ... then" arguments, such as "if embryonic stem cell research will find the cure for paralysis, then would you support it?" (without any consideration of superior alternatives)
Barack Obama on Afghanistan: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees![4]
Free speech for anything and everything ... except the conservative truth, and religion.
Insisting that the Bible literally prohibits judging anything.
Hollywood promotion of abortion is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
The belief that, although carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, choosing abortion rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk.
Requesting increased spending by government to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
Claiming that an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
Claiming that teaching abstinence does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.[5]
Claiming that premarital sex is acceptable and normal.
Claiming that increasing taxes must increase government revenue,[6] when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.
Claiming that Roe v. Wade cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by liberal deceit.)[7]
Doing away with traditional language (such as "he" to refer to men and women), despite centuries of previous use.
Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into Iraq was wrong but stepping into Sudan is not.
Believing/claiming that the United Nations is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
It is a right to dissent against American policy but never take a stand if that logic moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
Stating "God of the gaps" to justify atheism
Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of ANWR needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) [8]
Claiming that it's not fair to the world that America keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. [9]
Using a double-standard for racism and sexism when the target person is conservative.
Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, except when they are talking about the writers of the Bible.
Many liberals claim that even if Obama wasn't born in America then he should still be president.
Claiming that divine creation is “illogical” but creation from a spontaneous explosion of absolutely nothing at all “makes perfect sense.”
Failing to respect (and sometimes utterly disrespecting, such as in flag desecration) the United States of America in general while continuing their residency herein and actively demanding the benefits and liberties that come with being a citizen.
Claiming that Christianity is not a form of diversity while praising Islam for this same reason. Later (whenever it benefits them), liberals will compare the two, claiming that few differences exist between them.
Dodging statistics when doing so will favor the liberal agenda. A clear example of this is claiming that capital punishment is too expensive to taxpayers while they allow illegal immigrants to fly under the radar.
Cherry picking democracy: Liberals will laud the wisdom of the people when democracy produces a liberal result, but when it produces a conservative result, liberals will complain about mobocracy and demand judicial activism.
Assuming that any book espousing a liberal position is automatically authoritative and unquestionable.
Misplacing the burden of proof: Liberals insist that things like reports of extraterrestrial visitors have to be true until they have been conclusively disproved.
Claiming that the First Amendment protects only expression that they like, whereas any expression that offends them is subject to politically correct censorship.
Arguing that an opponent is inconsistent because he does not take silly extreme views, such as complaining that people are pro-life without preserving life in all circumstances.
Tacitly assuming that their preconceived notions must be true and then dismissing all other explanations as contradicting their preconceived notions.
That a nation can borrow its way out of debt and spend its way out of a recession.
Claiming that economy is a zero-sum game (see false zero-sum game)
Defending evolutionism by attacking a straw-man version of creationism rather than addressing what creationists actually say.
Liberals claim that they value freedom and at the same time want to restrict freedom to own weapons.
Claim that if God exists he demands a designer. Yet at the same time claim that the universe can be self-existing.
Claim that the AIDS epidemic is due to prejudice against homosexuals, rather than the dangers associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
Paying full attention to pedophiles in the Catholic Church, whilst completely ignoring pedophiles in the homosexual community.
Claiming that legalization of recreational drugs will reduce crime.
Denying that Hitler's evolutionary belief played a part in the Holocaust
Ranting about racism in the Republican party whilst ignoring the more prominent racism made by Democrats.
Claim that liberal secular bias in the media is a right-wing conspiracy.
Claim that atheism is not a religion
Claims that the Bible and prayer should be banned in within education in the name of 'Seperation of Church and State' whilst preaching for state-sanctioned atheism.
Claims that Seperation of Church and State is found in the constitution. When in fact it is only found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
Claim that homosexuality is genetically inherited.
Believe fervently in bogus homosexual statistics e.g. 'out of every two men, three were gay.'
Claim that domestic violence is due to patriarchy rather than drunkenness or simple anger.
Focus entirely on child abuse within private homes, whilst ignoring child abuse and severe neglect in state-funded orphanages.
Argue that illegal immigrants deserve more rights than locals.
Argue that crime is caused by poverty and social injustice, rather than bad parenting or the choice of the criminal.
Claim that the idea of happy marriages is naive, without mentioning the same idea to homosexuals.
Label evolution scientific and creationism as faith. When in fact both evolution and creation are beliefs as they require the person to believe in one or the other.
Label Christians as bigoted whilst ignoring the sheer intolerance homosexuals and pro-abortionists have to Christians.
Claiming atheists are somehow more intelligent than theists.
Argue that the Iraq War was all George Bush's idea whilst denying the fact that 111 Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq War.
Condemn hunters for shooting defenseless animals whilst encouraging pregnant women to have their even more defenseless children murdered by abortion.
Declaring satire against Islam and homosexuality as outrageous. Whilst ignoring or even tolerating satire against Christianity.
Denying the harm associated with participating in Black Magic.
Exaggerate the numbers of homosexuals and atheists, whilst understate or completely ignore the respectable number of Christians throughout the world.
Claim that natural gender roles and gender differences are 'socially constructed.'
Claim that humans are related to animals and plants instead of being created in the image of the Lord God Almighty.
Claim that liberalism is democratic but in practice referendums on same-sex marriage and capital punishment are prohibited as it is widely known that the opinion of majority disagrees with the liberals.
Believe that the opinion of a 'persecuted' minority such as homosexuals or drug-addicts are more important than the opinions of the majority.
Whenever crime increases, the laws need to be softened rather than hardened or maintained as they are.
Claim that evolution in the modern world is only opposed by a minority of 'christian fundamentalists'. In fact, poll after poll has found that over 40% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism.
When there are terrorist attacks, America's foreign policy is to blame rather than the terrorists themselves
Declare all military violence outrageous, whilst proclaiming that civilian rioting and violence from 'pacifists' is their right.
Dismiss social campaigners such as Mary Whitehouse as lunatics, despite their arguments for acting against the problems being reasonable.
Dismiss wealth made by a conservative shameful, whilst tolerating wealth made by liberals regardless of whether or not it was done legally.
Focus purely on rehabilitating criminals, whilst neglecting the rights of the victims.
Dismiss mainstream religion as 'superstitious', but the same label is not applied to easily refutable theories such as evolution or even beliefs in UFOs.
Denial the scientific value contained in the Bible (Such as the Bible claiming the Earth is round before man discovered the fact).
Throw a severe tantrum whenever conservatives contradict liberalism with strong logical arguments, rather than use a calm logical argument in reply or accept the conservative's evidence.
Claim that conservatives and Christians are 'sexist' just for standing up for traditional womanhood, without admitting clearly offensive sexism made towards women who disagree with liberalism.
Use unnecessarily complex language to make liberals appear more intelligent than conservatives or to avoid admitting errors.
Claim that people who did not vote for Obama were racist, when in fact there are wide range of factors for not voting for Obama nor the party he represents.
Rejection of familiar language for the sake of liberal ideology, for example removal of the words mom and dad for sake of homosexual foster parents.
Claim that religion and science are supposed to be two separate realities, but in fact there continues to be many scientific arguments for God's existence and many great scientists had a devout faith in the Lord God.
Claim that Christmas and Easter Sunday are just random days for wild parties rather than a special dedication to Jesus Christ.
Claim that liberals and secularists have a better tendency to liberate society more, when in fact the worse crimes against humanity were committed by atheist socialists and great events of liberation such as the abolition of slavery were led by Christian conservatives.
Claim that labeling terrorists as evil is 'down to their opinion', whilst labeling Christianity as evil is absolutely correct.
Claim that population control is needed to settle down the growing population worldwide, but in fact this is plain propaganda and the twice the amount of the population of 6 billion can fit into Jacksonville, Floridaas it contains over 25 billion square feet.
Teenagers are too young to access guns so they can defend themselves but they're never too young to have an abortion
Hippies, unions and Occupy Wall Street whose messages are intimidating and sometimes violent are heroes, but pro lifers are dangerous extremists (the latter idea is silly because only 7 murders by pro lifers have been made in the years since Roe v Wade. Most of these actions are opposed by pro lifers.
Animals and trees are precious whilst the unborn are just blobs of tissue.

In any case the missing items were. You obviously....; and adding a four letter word or two. I'm still hunting the original
A conservative who oppose same sex marriage is a bigot, but a liberal believing in the same way (such as Hillary Clinton) is not
The constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion, but not a handgun
There is subtle racism in campaign ads but nothing racist about affirmative action which puts blacks ahead of whites regardless of merit.
Protesting against abortion is extremism but allowing hateful messages at military funerals is free speech.
Liberals in Congress refusing to compromise with conservatives is somehow noble defense of ideology, but making a stand on conservative principles is obstructionism.