I thought of this because of other threads, here and elsewhere, but it wouldn't have been polite to make this a response to a particular post. So I'll put it here.
--
How to win any argument.
1. State an assertion. It can be anything at all. "Rain isn't wet" will work.
2. Cite people who agree with you, or, if some assumptions are made, could be interpreted to agree with you. For example, Winston Churchill supports the space program, because he opposed the Nazis, and if we assume that everyone who opposes the Nazis supports the space program, the conclusion is obvious.
3. Never state your assumptions. This is important. Never state your assumptions.
4. If an opponent cites an authority, either say that the authority lacks credentials, or that the evidence is not conclusive, or simply point out that someone else disagrees. The qualifications of your sources are not relevant and any questions about them can be treated as quibbling.
5. Advance as if under threat of attack. If you want to make ad hominem attacks, accuse your opponent of ad hominem attacks. If you want to change the subject, accuse your opponent of changing the subject.
6. Do change the subject, not just if you're losing, but anyway, to keep the other party confused. The subject should be something that could never be verified. If the topic is whether Policy X is wise, change it to what's going on in the mind of someone who supports it. Since this is not verifiable, you can't lose.
7. Pack these and every other logical fallacy you can, densely. If you have a straw man, a false inference, and a personal attack all in one sentence, your opponent can't possibly address them all. If he tries, you can interrupt with several more mistakes. He'll fall behind. His only option is to adopt your tactics, in which case you can point out he has so many fallacies you can't address them all (5), and you still win!
Especially, pack in insults. This is easy -- just replace "person" or "source" with "bigot," "racist," or "Nazi." Pick the insults at random, and mix them. While your opponent is sputtering over your calling human life advocates "Nazis," you get to pack in more zingers.
8. Laugh, or if it's on Internet, put a laughing smiley up. It's irrefutable (because it doesn't say anything in and of itself), it's insulting, and it makes your opponents lose their cool. You can also say, "I used to think that," or "I just love how people can rationalize things," or other things to suggest that your opponent is substandard.
9. If all else fails, and you've been definitively proven wrong, make another statement (on anything at all), then repeat your original assertion, as though your opponent had said nothing at all.
I have never seen this fail.
I wish I knew ways to make it fail! At least, ways that aren't even worse.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've seen it fail a lot, because reasonable people stop "arguing" with someone who behaves this way.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:I have never seen this fail.
Funny, I've never seen it work.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You always fall back to the old standard ad hominem attacks, don't you, Pops?
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
Sounds like Will B is a female. Us guys, we don't win arguments for the sake of winning; we try to convince the other person of our views. In this case, you have to be straightforward and use logic, not fallacies.
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
Sounds like Will B is a female. Us guys, we don't win arguments for the sake of winning; we try to convince the other person of our views. In this case, you have to be straightforward and use logic, not fallacies.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have never won an argument. I have been right but I've never won.
Eh.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
rofl.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
There are two types of argument. The first is an argument where the goal is to jointly figure out the correct answer to a question. In that sort of argument which side wins is irrelevant, so I'm guessing that is not the sort you are referring to.
I am assuming you refer to the second type of argument - where the goal is to defeat your opponent. If this is the case then you must remember the following: Victory always goes to whoever doesn't get mad. With that in mind, I could defeat your tactics.
I can't tell you exactly how, though. It is just too dangerous a method to give out just like that! You might use it for evil, rather than good... Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Will, From what I've seen of you, you tend to lack sophistication when you try to make a point or when responding to other people's points. I think your perspective here might be more due to that than to how to actually win an argument.
If you're upset that you can't seem to get people to agree with you or that you find your argument style ineffective, I'm sure that there are people who would be willing to give you some advice. I'm not sure if that's what you're going for or what with this or if you've got some other goal.
The simple fact is that, yes, some people can't see through the simplistic rhetorical tricks you listed, but many people can. For all the times I've seen people claim victory after doing some of these things, I don't know that I've ever seen someone, in my opinion, actually win their argument with them.
In this case, you've got to consider your audience. If it's full of people who know about the subject or about debate in general, it's pretty easy to win. The key is in being specific. The stuff you're talking about only works if the argument remains on the level of generalities. If you can get it onto a level where claims have to be justified rather than just stated. For instance, ask where the credentials of source X are lacking. Or specifically point out what you see are the logical flaws in someone's argument and ask that they address them. If you can set it where they either have to take on a definite form or it'll be clear that they're avoiding doing so, you've beaten them.
Winning a debate is about control and quality. You can lose if you've got quality on your side but not control. You tend to look like a fool if you've control and not quality, although it may look different to an unsophisticated audience. It's very hard to lose when you have both.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I am inclined to believe Will B's post was tongue-in-cheek humor
At least that how I saw it.
Posted by Darth Ender (Member # 7694) on :
Sith mind trick. Works every time
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I did expect discussion (of course), but I never expected to get more material!
Looks like I need to add some tactics to the list.
10) Just go ahead and declare victory, without bothering to argue at all! Only 3 posts in. I am not sure if that was meant to undercut what I said or confirm it, but it's brilliant (for winning, not for being sound), and I'll bring this in the next time I'm teaching about argumentation.
11) Pretend sympathy. It was even more powerful when coupled with disparaging remarks -- calling me "unsophisticated" and suggesting I get advice on the issue! I've only done this as a joke -- "Are you on any kind of medication?" -- but certainly not in argument. (I won't talk about that in class -- I'm afraid someone might use it.)
This is the first ad hominem variant mentioned in [url= http://"http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html"]Conversational terrorism[/url], which is really more oriented, I think, toward bad personal interactions than to debate, although I'm sure it can be used either way.
I did cover the thing about calling me a woman (change of subject, and of course ad hominem). I suppose that's meant to be a bad thing, since it suggests that women only want to win and don't care about logic. Not a suggestion I'd care to make with a woman in the room, at least if she's armed.
OK, it's Internet; ad hominem is expected. Not a good thing, but expected.
I think I should also add: 12) One-liners. People respect wit, and brevity's the soul of it. This is a real problem for those of us who want sound argument: it's hard to be quite as brief if you're constrained to speak the truth!
--
Xaposert, what you say, based on what I've heard, is how undecideds judge Presidential debates -- lose your cool and you lose. I see something in this. There's also the matter of who buys ink by the barrel, or, in smaller venues, who has the most patience. This is usually when I drop out: I lack the patience for interminable argument.
--
Interesting. Most of the replies (not all, to be sure) have been deflections, or denials, or ad hominem variants. I have to wonder: the power of unsound rhetoric is not zero -- if it were, think how different advertising would be. Think about the people that disagree with you on religion, politics, whatever, and how it would be if they hadn't believed unsound arguments. What's the reason for denying the power of unsound rhetoric?
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
Well, you'd definitely win in an argument with me, because now I am totally confused.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that accusing your opponents of ad hominems and logical fallacies is another classic way of "winning" an argument without actually having to make a valid point.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
That would be (5).
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote: From what I've seen of you, you tend to lack sophistication when you try to make a point or when responding to other people's points.
I suffer from this as well.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Sophistication is overrated. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I wouldn't know! Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Wow. Heh. I agree with Tres. Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Frankly I think the list is pretty astute, and even those who claim sophistication tend to use some of these from time to time.
(Heck, I'm guilty of a few myself.)
Plenty of poeple on ths board fall into these patterns. And there are a few who refuse to admit it because they suffer from delusions of grandeur. Denial is a wonderful state to live in...
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
La La Land is better this time of year, though.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I have heard it does have its merits, but the the shrimp kabobs in the State of Denial is to die for and Happy Hour is, in fact, happy.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Thank you, estavares! But are you sure it's delusions of grandeur? Maybe it's real grandeur!
But it was a curious thing.
Shrimp kabobs, huh? Time to get offline and get dinner.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You poor guy, always thinking with your stomach.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Perhaps a better title for this thread would be "how talk radio hosts, on both sides of the political spectrum, can seem to "win" arguments." As already alluded to, winning an argument has little to do with convincing anyone that your opinions are correct. Rather, when you way winning, you really mean making yourself seem smarter than your opponent. This isn't nearly as hard as coming up with a superior idea. It's all about the perception. This, of course, plays right into the hands of talk radio hosts. If they can get enough people to believe they're really really smart, then they get good ratings, which is the primary goal of any media source. Conflict sells--ideas are seconday.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
12) Declare that the opposition is "grasping for straws," that you are winning, and that they should give up while they still can.
--j_k
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
13) Wait for the most impassioned part (or, on Internet, the longest chunk), and say: "Whatever. "
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Wow. Heh. I agree with Tres.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"