While surfing the Internet, I came across an article, written in 2013, on a website called TownHall, a conservative-leaning website for politics.

The article was titled "20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer." In it was the assertion that liberals can't persuade people based on logic because they are illogical. Instead, it claims that liberals use emotional arguments to make their case. What was the author's evidence? These 20 questions that liberals apparently couldn't answer -- until now!

1. A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers could be conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

My Answer: Any liberal who claims that the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon attacks are evil because of possible conservatism rather than the fact that they killed four people, is a dumb liberal. Nobody is making this argument. They're evil because they killed people, and injured many more. Next.

2. If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

My Answer: Is this author familiar with how taxation and government appropriations work? Taxation isn't a voluntary thing. Taxation is in the constitution. We pay taxes to pay for everything, some things we like, others we don't. We elect leaders, they debate, and they fund/cut funding in areas they see fit. No matter what, they need to be paid for. This includes things that conservatives like, like increased funding for the military.

3. How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

My Answer: I don't give a damn about the certain size of government. Too big, too small, that doesn't even matter in itself. I want a government that intervenes when it's needed and stays out of our way when it isn't needed. Yes, that's subjective, but don't blanket us liberals as lovers of big government for the sake of big government. Character and morals do matter because both of those play into policy. Again the author is attacking apathy, not liberalism.

4. What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

My Answer: Enough to do what needs to be done while also not screwing over anybody else. I don't want to raise someone's taxes to 30 percent when they're making less than 20 thousand dollars a year, that'll suppress their demand. I think someone making millions of dollars every year can afford to pay a little more because their buying habits won't change from it, and it'll finance the nation's needs, which then helps consumers, which then helps rich people again.

5. Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has gone up after we've cut taxes?

My Answer: Because revenue grows as population grows. But when you take into account revenue collection as a percentage of GDP, revenue falls. That's why we saw more net revenue flow into the treasury under George Bush while simultaneously seeing budget surpluses turn into deficits. The increase wasn't proportional to GDP and spending.

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

My Answer: The author is just picking on terms at this point. When it comes to a woman making decisions about her body, I respect her choice. And I hold that opinion on that certain issue. I don't think it's pro-choice to let people run around doing whatever they want harming whomever they want, that's ridiculous.

7. If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

My Answer: The author is missing the point. People don't criticize corporations for the sake of being corporations. They criticize them for their actions. Closing their plant, destroying jobs, and sending work overseas is an action that makes us critical of some corporations.

8. How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

My Answer: Because these ideas aren't exclusive from each other. Krugman wants more spending on healthcare, education, and social programs. But those aren't the only programs in the budget. I personally don't know what Krugman's position on the deficit is, but it's very possible to increase spending in some areas and cut spending by even more in others.

9. If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

My Answer: That's only if you look at it in a certain way. More republican individuals give to charity, but more money overall is given to charity by democrats. Not like that matters either way.

10. Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

My Answer: Not anytime soon. The danger of debt can only be seen when you take into account the debt's percentage of GDP and that's been going down.

11. Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

My Answer: Well, our spending is not unsustainable. The deficit gets smaller every year. 90% of our budget comes from military, entitlements like Social Security, and interest to the debt. Military spending can be cut a bit because there is some waste present. Lift the cap off of taxable income from social security and it'll be solvent for several more decades. And pay off the debt by growing the economy faster than deficits, which we're already doing.

12. If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

My Answer: Separation of Church and State are principles found in the constitution. We are a democracy, not a theocracy. What's the logical argument against polygamy and incest marriage? Well, democracy. These things won't just happen because we legalized gay marriage. They'll happen, or be prevented from happening by debates held by our lawmakers, and the people.

13. In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

My Answer: Two mistakes. The first mistake: you have to realize that income taxes are not the only taxes that exist. Top earners pay more income taxes, but the middle class and poor pay more social security, payroll, and sales taxes. The second mistake: you complain that the top earners have too much burden, even though rates are so low. This is because top earners own a disproportionate amount of wealth. Maybe that can be solved with a minimum wage increase, and better access to a college education so more people are enabled to increase their potential for acquiring more wealth.

14. If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

Answer: I'm not really aware of this political issue but my best guess is that lawyers are people too, they need to pay bills, so they deserve to be paid for their work? Plus we all have the right to a legal counsel so I assume if you truly can't pay the bill, a lawyer is appointed for you.

15. How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

My Answer: My beliefs that women have a right to their bodies and that the government shouldn't use lethal tactics against people who don't pose an immediate threat, don't seem to conflict with each other. Yes, murder is wrong, but we have a justice system, not a revenge system. The death penalty is more costly, ineffective, and given unfairly based on race. You can stand up against those issues, and still support a woman's right to choose.

16. A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to watch lose their jobs?

My Answer: Empirical evidence shows that you're wrong. Minimum wage increases do not kill jobs. It puts more money in the pockets of many consumers, which drives up their spending. How would jobs go down when businesses are collecting even more money?

17. The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

My Answer: For a bulk of the earth's existence, the planet was not suitable for human life. That's where the fluctuation of climate came from, and that fluctuation is easily explainable by scientists. But within the last several thousand years or so, it's settled into a phase of stability. We are losing that sustainability due to our pollution and emissions.

18. We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

My Answer: Well, those choices offered are a reflection of competition within our capitalist economy. That shouldn't change whether schools are funded by state or nationally, or whether defense is funded by state or nationally.

19. If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

My Answer: Yes. That's what democracy is. If people are to run on a platform of more government spending, and a majority of election winners have that platform, well, spending will go up. If someone runs on a platform of cutting spending, shrinking government, and lowering taxes, and the majority of winners have that philosophy, then spending, taxes, and size of government will go down. I don't see what the author was getting at.

20. If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

My Answer: That discrepancy is due to workplace discrimination, as well as a combination of other factors. That's not good for the economy. If someone earns more because of an absence of discrimination, that'll drive demand and help the economy.

There we have it. 20 questions that liberals can't answer, answered by a liberal. I encourage everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, to stop with the ad hominem attacks against the other side, simply because of their ideology. Being liberal doesn't make you dumb, being conservative doesn't make you dumb. We should judge arguments not based on our prejudice, but based on the logic and evidence presented to us.