Ann Coulter Quotes

...associational ad hominem attacks remain the left's favorite rhetorical strategy for undermining opponents.

So you see how endlessly futile and fruitless it would be if we wanted to refute their objections every time they obstinately resolved not to think through what they say but merely to speak, just so long as they contradict our arguments in any way they can.

When all else fails the liberals call you names or attack your personality.

When they can't win a debate (can they ever?), leftists deploy what the late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called the argument from intimidation. Instead of trying to refute the other side, they label their opponents' position evil, attribute sinister motives to its adherents, and charge that its proponents are encouraging violence.

If you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will have no answer except slanging or silence.

I love hard political debate and I love beating somebody on a political point but what I'm more frustrated by is the politics where you play the man not the politics.

Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.

I'm a fan of robust debate, and I'm not averse to engaging in the odd ad hominem attack myself.

I've learned that sometimes when people don't like what you have to say, and don't want to debate you on ideas, it's just easier to call you a dumb blonde from Fox News.

Whenever people are being intellectually dishonest in debate, it is an implicit concession they have lost the fight

Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind.

But men love abstract reasoning and neat systematization so much that they think nothing of distorting the truth, closing their eyes and ears to contrary evidence to preserve their logical constructions.

Affect not little shifts and subterfuges to avoid the force of an argument.

You never win an argument until they attack your person.

Those who, in debate, appeal to their qualifications, argue from memory, not from understanding.

A disputant no more cares for the truth than the sportsman for the hare.

There is no such thing as a convincing argument, although every man thinks he has one.

It's so much easier to debate people when you can pretend that they hold moronic position that they don't actually believe.

The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

What we saw with both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, that their response, whenever you point to anything in their record, is just to yell, "Liar, liar, liar," and to get very personal and to make direct character attacks. And my approach, from the very beginning of this President's campaign, starting a year ago in 2015, is that I will not respond in kind. I do not intend to insult any of the candidates.

Talking to liberals is much more fun now that we have Lexis-Nexis.

I have chosen a different path when talking about the failings of the Republican leadership. I don't make it personal, and many other people do, and I suspect maybe they're not aware of that. If everybody's dumping on 'em, they're gonna conclude that everybody is.

I hope you become comfortable with the use of logic without being deceived into concluding that logic will inevitably lead you to the correct conclusion.

Liberals have a set of folk theories that are fallacious. One of them comes from the Enlightenment, and the assumption is that you are supposed to be logical. They assume all you have to do is tell people the facts and they will reason to the right conclusion. This is utterly ridiculous. Thought is mainly metaphorical. The frames trump all the facts.

Few things are more irritating than when someone who is wrong is also very effective in making his point.