gdr2004

Are you guys familiar with this guy? I thought it was a good read but what are your opinions on this? I think if properly utilized, it could be really good.

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/38WaystoWin2.asp
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
38 Ways to Win an Argument
from Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Art of Controversy

1. Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

2. Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, “You do not understand the mysteries of Kant’s philosophy.” Person B replies, “Oh, if it’s mysteries you’re talking about, I’ll have nothing to do with them.”

3. Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than what was asserted.

4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.

5. Use your opponent’s beliefs against him. If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example: If the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.

6. Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
Example: Call something by a different name: “good repute” instead of “honor,” “virtue” instead of “virginity,” “red-blooded” instead of “vertebrates.”

7. State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent’s admissions.

8. Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

9. Use your opponent’s answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

10. If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede.

11. If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.

12. If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.
Example: What an impartial person would call “public worship” or a “system of religion” is described by an adherent as “piety” or “godliness” and by an opponent as “bigotry” or “superstition.” In other words, inset what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea.

13. To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
Example: If you want him to admit that a boy must do everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, “whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents.” Or, if a thing is said to occur “often,” ask whether you are to understand “often” to mean few or many times, the opponent will say “many.” It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white, or gray next to white and call it black.

14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.

15. If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent’s acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition, as in #14, or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted. For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding.

16. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.
Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, “Why don’t you hang yourself?” Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, “Why don’t you leave on the first plane?”

17. If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent’s idea.

18. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

19. Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific.
Example: If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.

20. If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion. Rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

21. When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him. For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.
Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice or emotion, or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner.

22. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

23. Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his statements. By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement. Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement’s limits and say, “That is what I said, no more.”

24. State a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears that your opponent’s proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so it appears to be indirectly refuted.

25. If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent’s proposition.
Example: “All ruminants are horned,” is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel.

26. A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.
Example: Your opponent declares, “So and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him.” You retort, “Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits.”

27. Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. No only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case, and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.

28. When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who are not experts on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

29. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion—that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute. This may be done without presumption that the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

30. Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself.

31. If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a fine stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
Example: “What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it.” In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense. This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.

32. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
Example: You can say, “That is fascism” or “atheism” or “superstition.” In making an objection of this kind you take for granted:
1. That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited; and
2. The system referred to has been entirely refuted.

33. You admit your opponent’s premises but deny the conclusion.
Example: “That’s all very well in theory, but it won’t work in practice.”

34. When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter-question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so. You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

35. Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive. If you succeed in making your opponent’s opinion—should it prove true—seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately.
Example: A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma. You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church. He will abandon the argument.

36. You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.

37. Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases. If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won the day.

38. Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

00000000000000000000000000000

phredgreen

i have real problems with this guy. many of his points are underhanded and do nothing to bring about positive results, instead they are tactics to win without any real consensus being met, which should be the real goal of any argument.

my personal opinion of the entire idea of arguing on the internet falls into the special olyumpics clause.

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine

H12

Very good for the art of controversy, very bad for the future of evolution.

__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."
--Aristotle

ARTelevision

I do agree with phredgreen.

You could also pull your opponents' pants down or just make funny faces at them.

Of course, argumentation can also be conducted with civility, one could even grant some points to one's opponent. The most excellent method is to stop arguing. Dead horses are best left unbeaten.

__________________
create evolution

ratbastid

Sneaky, but very commonly used tactics. It's good to recognize these for when they're used against you. And, of course, if it's more important to win an argument than to be able to look yourself in the eye afterward, well, have at it.

Thanks for bringing us the work of The Philosopher with an "S"!

"Do all philosophers have an 's' in them?"
"Uh, yeah! I think most of them do!"

mr sticky

Debate was never meant to be a win/lose proposition. It's major basis was to teach the debaters to think logically, quickly and thoroughly. A great learning tool that is now just a spectator sport. It's sad that our entire society is degrading into a society that only see winners and losers.

These points merely reflect that change in our societal state, showing that we're reducing everything to a cut-and-dried competetive contest.

Politics is about winning the election, not debating ideas.

Schools are about getting the best possible polish on your transcript, not actually about learning and developing.

Little league is now a training ground for Major League Baseball instead of the whimsical excuse to play hard, get dirty and break out the grill.

It won't be long before we degrade into pay-per-view, gladiator style fights to the death that were indicative of the failure of the Roman society.

__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

:::OshnSoul:::

arguing never gets you anywhere, there's nothing to win, survive, or compete with.
We don't have to make points- all we need to do is just be ourselves and realize that others are different with different beliefs and opinions.
I agree with everyone who has replied. It does not further society nor humanity in evolution, neither does it resolve anything- arguing and competing does not bring together the differences of people, but seperates them even more.

sprocket

This sounds like required reading for trial lawyers.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Nisses

Can't agree more. I've seen at least half of them if not more right here on the TFP, even when the thread wasn't getting heated...

In fact, what Schopenhauer did here is use the Art of War as an example, and summarize in the same way.

In short, he just collected them in a big list.

If anything, you can learn from this, like ratbastid said, when they are using it against you, and work out a reasonable and logical response.

*Looks at mr. Sticky* Nice way to put #1 into practice

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

apeman

uh, some of them are underhand, but some of them remind me of Plato, or rather Socrates in Plato's Republic

I think there's about 10 valid techniques in that list and the rest should be left for fools to argue with fools (which is a spectator sport)

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

CSflim

39: And to finish him off completely, a cream pie to the face never hurts.

__________________

apeman

lol

too right - who could take seriously the arguments of a man with cream all over his face? not me

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy