Yes we agree that people know best what they want, the discussion is on socialists implicitly assuming a monopoly ( the state) will generate the best satisfaction for that want. This is a mistake, often implicit and unquestioned, that statists make.
AE is value free because praxeology is about logical necessities implied in human action. Surely you agree that logic is value free.
The anti-statism is libertarian, not Austrian, in saying “look most people want maximum welness, the best way is the free market”. So libertarians are pointing out the political implications of a personal ethic many people have.
An Austrian Economist could perfectly advice a socialist party to raise minimum wages, as it will keep unskilled workers unemployed, thereby increasing potential votes, the welfare state and the perceived relevance of unions. The Austrian Economist simply points out the logical consequences of the minimum wage policy, without taking a stance on whether these consequences are “good”.
As Student rigtfully pointed out, avoid the emotions, if/when at all possible; if not, the debate becomes a pointless childish fight. it’s very difficult to debate when either you (especially) or your opponent (leftist or otherwise) gets emotional and things can quickly go downhill from there.
For that matter, you can do things to decrease the liklihood either you or your opponent will get emotional during the debate: 1) avoid at all costs personal attacks. it makes you look foolish, ignorant and immature (you dont want to come across as a politician, do you?). 2) Don’t take their accusations/comments personally. They may have good reason to think they way they do (they’re not the only one who has biased / misinformed opinions). and 3) keep the tone in a “i’m here to discuss this with you and learn” rather than a “me vs you” style. Talk w/ them to learn, to understand their POV and to simply discuss the subject matter. Don’t go to a debate to “prove them wrong” no matter how right you think you are; that will only end up in disaster. Either way, the best thing to do is keep calm. I’ve lost (and still lose) countless debates and arguments with people because I tend to get very emotional by nature. On the infrequent debates i’ve had where i remained calm, i either learned something or “won”.
One problem with debating with leftists, now that i think about it, is that they rely on emotions to get their point across. With the countless debates I’ve had with leftists (from social democrats to communists), they inevitably structure the problem in an emotional manner, such that if you disagree, you come off as a cold, caloused bastard. so be careful with that, especially if it’s a public or semi-public (i.e. university or HS level) debate. (BTW, pay attention to CNN and MSNBC (liberal media) and their articles tend to show fish and birds covered in oil in an article about the oil spill; or the poor people who are losing their houses every day to mortgage forclosures etc when discussing new housing regulation - you’ll see what i mean).
Last, but not least, watch Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/) and his countless discussions on youtube. Not only is he an excellent debater, but watch how he handles himself when talking to lefties who, again, try to make it emotional.
It depends on the type of “Emotional attack”, IMHO. If they’re just basically reciting what they’ve learned all these years, than a more compassionate dismantling of their arguments is a good idea. However, the type I’m guessing you’re describing really has no business being “talked nice” to. You can keep your own head cool while coldly dismantling their attacks with no shred of remorse.
The individual who tries to act professional and ends up in tears has a lot less credibility than the guy who looks like he’s not breaking a sweat while still grinding their ego under his boot, IMO. And since debate is really all about winning the audience members, I think it’s rather foolish to try and convert the other debater most of the time. It helps to keep them off your back on the internet, at least.
I usually try to find some common ground with leftists. Discuss the logic and basis of their thoughts, with a sprinkle of libertarian logic in the mix.
However, with the more extreme leftists, I have found that this does not necessarily work, because they have an all left or nothing attitude.