Can frank language change the outcome of a debate? Some (here and here) are saying Sarah Palin has won a round against President Obama, thanks to some “inflammatory” (if you hate Palin) or “frank” (if you like Palin) language. Her “death panel” phrase drew enough attention that part of the proposed legislation on end-of-life medical care was scrapped:
A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government “death panels,” with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.
I am certainly an advocate for diplomacy. (Does that make me too nice?) However, the words we use do matter. (Say for example when you use “choice” or “women’s rights” instead of “killing.”)
by 
I wouldn’t call it ‘frank’ or ‘inflamatory.’ I’d use some inflamatory language myself, and just call it ‘lying.’ That’s exactly what it is. Palin’s comment was a powerful attack on something the proposed legislation didn’t even permit – a highly effective but dishonest debate technique, demonstrating much that is wrong with politics, where scoring a partisan victory is more important than an honest debate over the merits and flaws of a proposal.
I agree very much that inflammatory and sometimes out-right lies keep society away from a more sane middle-ground on many topics. I think the people in the States who are against any kind of socialization in their medical care are one example of this. I don’t think it’s as bad as they fear.
Another example though are the people calling those people racists.