A pain in the R.E.C.T.U.M.

It's (not) debatable

I've been hearing versions of this argument repeated for so long, I just thought that I should post it so that people know what to look for...

... But before we get started, I just want to iterate that even given the tone of this post I am not trying to single out a particular person, just a group of people who are professing oppression based on reasons that they can neither define nor cop to. So if you find yourself making this argument to someone, anyone, ask yourself: "Am I a R.E.C.T.U.M.?"

The argument:

I keep hearing from Republican/Evangelical/Churchgoing/Tea-party/Ultra-con/Moralists (RECTUMs) asking for a "logical" debate. Unfortunately, this debate always seems to go the same way:

RECTUM: "You're just making assertions, show me the evidence!"

RATIONAL: "Here are several scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed."

RECTUM: "Peer review is a scam. Show me the evidence!"

RATIONAL: "This scientific experiment shows step by step how they came up with this conclusion."

RECTUM: "I don't understand the language. It could mean anything. You need to show me some evidence!"

RATIONAL: "Here is a course of study that defines the language, shows how to perform the experiment, and what to look for."

RECTUM: "That takes too long. You need to show me the evidence!"

RATIONAL: "Here is a historical overview of how this process has affected the environment/test subjects over time."

RECTUM: "You weren't there to see it happen. I wasn't there to see it happen. Show me some evidence!"

RATIONAL: "You're not taking this seriously, are you?"

RECTUM: "Aha! You're making assertions, and you still haven't shown me any evidence!"

Rinse and repeat.