Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

38 ways to win an argument

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:09:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ROFL!

Those are dirty tricks! lol. Though, they won't likely work on an intelligent audience.

It's funny how politicians for example, intentionally use logical fallacies to actually convince people because arguments that are logically fallacious actually convince a lot of people who aren't versed in formal logic!

For example, one of the very common arguments is the argumentum ad populum and it gets people every time! "The majority believe it, so it must be true!"

Or a classic non-sequitur used by politicians: "If you don't vote for me, you don't like freedom!"
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:10:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:09:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
ROFL!

Those are dirty tricks! lol. Though, they won't likely work on an intelligent audience.

Which means it'll work 9/10 times.
kfc
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:14:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
...you guys seriously don't see stuff like that used all the time around here? esp the first one lol... like every political debate... and pretty much every discussion ragnar has ever had :D
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:26:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:14:20 PM, belle wrote:
...you guys seriously don't see stuff like that used all the time around here? esp the first one lol... like every political debate... and pretty much every discussion ragnar has ever had :D

So many strawmen on DDO lol.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:30:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. is dirty, but acceptable if done tastefully.
2. equivocation. Logically fallacy. Don't use it.
3. Strawman. Easy way to lose a debate. Use this against me, you die.
4. Doesn't work in these debates.
5. Normal. Fun happy time debating.
6. Moving the goal posts. Bad form, illogical, tacit admission that you cannot defend your position fairly.
7. Shotgun. Disrespectful to your opponent, bad form, and bogs down debates horribly.
8. If you can do it, sometimes works. Insults can lose you the conduct point, though.
9. Logic failure.
10. Won't work.
11. Bad form, confuses the voters.
12. Doesn't make sense.
13. Might work, in a few cases. Not good debating form though.
14. Happens all the time.
15. If you need to resort to this, you are in trouble already. The voters will probably catch the bait-and-switch.
16. Only works in some debates; borders on ad homniem.
17. Eh, normal.
18. If you can, do it.
19. Will be taken as a concession.
20. Typical.
21. If your opponent uses a thin, poorly constructed argument, tear it into quivering shreds. Don't waste time swapping banalities.
22. Time for a clever diversion, not a refusal to debate.
23. Can be done.
24. Will be caught, and you will look stupid.
25. I do this all the time. Generalities are always incorrect. :P
26. I've done it, mostly against new debaters. Fun when they leave an opening for this.
27. Common sense.
28 and 29 have no bearing on debates here, at least not off the forums.
30. Appeal to authority is another logical fallacy. Don't do it.
31. This won't work here.
32. Logical fallacy. Don't be this way.
33. All the time. Usually one or more of his premises will be flawed; point out the flaw, get him to accept the alteration, then show how his entire argument is now invalid.
34. Yes.
35. Ad homniem. Arguing about the debater rather than about his points will lose you debates on here.
36. Heh. If you can pull it off. Expect to lose friends this way.
37. Certainly. Common sense.
38. Worthless advice. Avoid this kind of behaviour. Always be courteous, respectful, and helpful to your opponent, even as you reduce his arguments to a pile of helpless detrius.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:31:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:10:51 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 4/3/2011 9:09:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
ROFL!

Those are dirty tricks! lol. Though, they won't likely work on an intelligent audience.

Which means it'll work 9/10 times.

Ha! Excellent!
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:43:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:30:04 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
1. is dirty, but acceptable if done tastefully.
2. equivocation. Logically fallacy. Don't use it.
3. Strawman. Easy way to lose a debate. Use this against me, you die.
4. Doesn't work in these debates.
5. Normal. Fun happy time debating.
6. Moving the goal posts. Bad form, illogical, tacit admission that you cannot defend your position fairly.
7. Shotgun. Disrespectful to your opponent, bad form, and bogs down debates horribly.
8. If you can do it, sometimes works. Insults can lose you the conduct point, though.
9. Logic failure.
10. Won't work.
11. Bad form, confuses the voters.
12. Doesn't make sense.
13. Might work, in a few cases. Not good debating form though.
14. Happens all the time.
15. If you need to resort to this, you are in trouble already. The voters will probably catch the bait-and-switch.
16. Only works in some debates; borders on ad homniem.
17. Eh, normal.
18. If you can, do it.
19. Will be taken as a concession.
20. Typical.
21. If your opponent uses a thin, poorly constructed argument, tear it into quivering shreds. Don't waste time swapping banalities.
22. Time for a clever diversion, not a refusal to debate.
23. Can be done.
24. Will be caught, and you will look stupid.
25. I do this all the time. Generalities are always incorrect. :P
26. I've done it, mostly against new debaters. Fun when they leave an opening for this.
27. Common sense.
28 and 29 have no bearing on debates here, at least not off the forums.
30. Appeal to authority is another logical fallacy. Don't do it.
31. This won't work here.
32. Logical fallacy. Don't be this way.
33. All the time. Usually one or more of his premises will be flawed; point out the flaw, get him to accept the alteration, then show how his entire argument is now invalid.
34. Yes.
35. Ad homniem. Arguing about the debater rather than about his points will lose you debates on here.
36. Heh. If you can pull it off. Expect to lose friends this way.
37. Certainly. Common sense.
38. Worthless advice. Avoid this kind of behaviour. Always be courteous, respectful, and helpful to your opponent, even as you reduce his arguments to a pile of helpless detrius.

This is 38 ways to WIN an argument. Not 38 ways to be logically consistent and polite.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:48:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:14:20 PM, belle wrote:
? esp the first one lol... like every political debate... and pretty much every discussion ragnar has ever had :D

Well yeah, reductio ad absurdum is pretty much my profession.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:52:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:43:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/3/2011 9:30:04 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
pointless stuff, blah blah blah

This is 38 ways to WIN an argument. Not 38 ways to be logically consistent and polite.

Most of those logic errors will lose you the debate against a good opponent. Being polite merely makes the defeat more devastating for your opponent.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 12:52:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not saying this towards anyone in particular, but dumb people have a tendency to mentally reduce good arguments into simple and often weak arguments that they can understand.

It would seem as though Bertrand Russell was right when he said that "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

I think that's where a lot of the straw men come from. Most of it probably isn't being done by people who have mastered the art of trickery.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 10:00:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:10:51 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 4/3/2011 9:09:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
ROFL!

Those are dirty tricks! lol. Though, they won't likely work on an intelligent audience.

Which means it'll work 9/10 times.

This.

I remember using a lot of these tricks (unintentionally) in debate. They're actually far more effective than you guys might think. I got to nationals, so... that kinda says something.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 2:31:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The list is from the original version of Schopenhauer's Art of Argument, a brilliant work that every serious debater should read. They shouldn't be understood as what Schopenhauer advocates doing, but rather what to watch out for in an argument. He said he "collected all the dishonest tricks so frequently occurring in argument and clearly presented each of them in its characteristic setting, illustrated by examples and given a name of its own." It was like a list of fallacies.