Online debates are always frustrating for a few very simple reasons, and all of these reasons boil down to either people who resort to fallacies to support their position, or people who are only online to troll others for personal amusement. Below, I offer some examples of bad arguments I have faced and my responses describing their fallacious nature along with my rebuttals

It is only fair to point out that my position is that of the classical liberal, and my foundational principles are individual liberty and natural rights. If you oppose the concept that each individual is responsible for his choices and actions, we may not be able to make progress here. Nonetheless, life, liberty, and property are the foundation of any discussion about rights because as I stated before, these are universal and reciprocal measures to define the limits of anyone's sphere of authority and the boundaries of trespass against others. This is doubly important because the specific arguments I confront often use a counterfeit version of these principles as their basis.

Example argument: Immigration.

1. "He's an illegal immigrant!"
This is an appeal to authority rather than a rational argument. Legality has no bearing on morality or rationality. It is just the arbitrary dictates of people who claim political power.

2. "But government represents us, so their laws are just!"
This is an unsupported assertion followed by a non sequitur. There is no agent/principal relationship between a politician and those who voted for him, much less between the politician and those who voted for someone else, declined to participate, or were barred from participating. There is even less of an argument in favor of appointed officials and bureaucrats.

3. ""Well, government borders are like property lines, and immigrants are trespassing!"
False analogy. Property boundaries are defined by the homesteading principle and voluntary exchange. National borders are gang turf lines. National borders just define which group usurps the authority to trespass against you.

4. "Then how do you get to a free society by letting in people who will support the government's welfare programs?"
That would be shifting the burden of proof. How do you get to a free society by advocating more government control? Don't shift the burden of proof, and excuse tyranny as somehow protecting liberty. I know this is merely anecdotal, but I have worked with immigrants, and they are honest hard workers who don't care about arbitrary government dictates. There is no attitude more liberating than that. And furthermore, the government welfare programs are illegitimate in the first place because they are funded through theft, not to mention the disputes around the claim that immigrants are welfare leeches more than those born here.

5. "But immigrants smuggle drugs and commit crimes related to the drug trade!"
This argument is just a mess. Prohibition creates violent black markets. The solution is to oppose arbitrary government prohibitions. If the prohibitions go away, the violent black markets do, too. The only crime related to beer now that alcohol prohibition is largely gone is that Budweiser claims to actually be beer.

Now it's Your Turn!
Are my responses off-base at all? Did I miss any common arguments I should have included? Comment below and let's attempt to have a real rational civilized discussion on this social media platform and defy the odds!