I think Ive found the bible of Study debate tactics.

[Tgace]

Arthur Schopenhauer:The Art of Controversy

This little gem has such tips as...

The Extension.—This consists in carrying your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; in giving it as general a signification and as wide a sense as possible, so as to exaggerate it; and, on the other hand, in giving your own proposition as restricted a sense and as narrow limits as you can, because the more general a statement becomes, the more numerous are the objections to which it is open. The defence consists in an accurate statement of the point or essential question at issue

And

This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practising some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent.

And

If you observe that your opponent has taken up a line of argument which will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion, but interrupt the course of the dispute in time, or break it off altogether, or lead him away from the subject, and bring him to others. In short, you must effect the trick which will be noticed later on, the mutatio controversiae. (See § xxix.)

You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast; and the trick is possible, because a man generally supposes that there must be some meaning in words:

Gewöhnlich glaubt der Mensch, wenn er nur Worte hört,
Es müsse sich dabei doch auch was denken lassen.

​

If he is secretly conscious of his own weakness, and accustomed to hear much that he does not understand, and to make as though he did, you can easily impose upon him by some serious fooling that sounds very deep or learned, and deprives him of hearing, sight, and thought; and by giving out that it is the most indisputable proof of what you assert. It is a well-known fact that in recent times some philosophers have practised this trick on the whole of the public with the most brilliant success. But since present examples are odious, we may refer to The Vicar of Wakefield for an old one.

This books a hoot....

 

[Cryozombie]

WHo needs the book... I see many of those tactics practiced right here everyday.

 

[Loki]

That's fine, if you're debating for the sake of debating, and simply trying to win. But that doesn't make one right. Disorienting a debater by pissing him off is like sticking your foot out to trip a runner in a competition. My two bits.

~ Loki

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Loki ~ true dat.

A friend of a friend was a big-time debater in high school. He won almost every competition. How? He seamlessly made up statistics and "facts" on the spot as he was talking, and managed to sound condescending to the other person.

Needless to say, I was less than impressed.

 

[Tgace]

How about titles and authors? :uhyeah:

Although to be fair, its far easier to resort to these tactics in this medium than others. Things polarize pretty quickly and once you land on either side of center there is a tendancy to get spun out to the extreme ends as people are forced to defend their opinions.

 

[arnisador]

Well, Schopenhauer would know about arguing, I suppose. Nice to have that on line!

 

[rmcrobertson]

...but don't let's forget that when we can't come up with a logical argument or support what we claim, always a) attack the other guy's patriotism, b) attack her or him for being an intellectual, c) attack him or her for being illogical, d) attack her or him for being in favor, of say, death.

 

[arnisador]

Logic is over-rated. How often do you see it settle an argument? It's very rare.

 

[Flatlander]

==========================================
Moderator Warning.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
===================================================

 

[Tgace]

Is it even possible to "win" an argument in a medium like this? Or for that matter any "argument" that involves politics, religon, social issues etc? Just because one person is better at rhetoric, debate etc. only means that person is better at convincing, does it really "prove" his opinion is the "correct" one?

 

[MA-Caver]

Quote:
This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practising some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent.
And

Quote:
If you observe that your opponent has taken up a line of argument which will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion, but interrupt the course of the dispute in time, or break it off altogether, or lead him away from the subject, and bring him to others. In short, you must effect the trick which will be noticed later on, the mutatio controversiae. (See § xxix.)

Heh, I thought that avoiding these was the general idea here at the Study... heh.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah but it sure keeps things interesting doesn't it?

 

[MA-Caver]

Yeah but it sure keeps things interesting doesn't it?

:rofl: :rofl: It certainly does at that... :boing2:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

If you observe that your opponent has taken up a line of argument which will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion, but interrupt the course of the dispute in time, or break it off altogether, or lead him away from the subject, and bring him to others. In short, you must effect the trick which will be noticed later on, the mutatio controversiae. (See § xxix.)


This is the "red herring" fallacy...or the "wild goose chase" or "smoke screen" argument. More properly titled ignoratio elenchi.

This isn't a good debate tactic...though it is often used. It is easy to fall into without intending to.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(fallacy)



Regards,


Steve

 

[Loki]

This is the "red herring" fallacy...or the "wild goose chase" or "smoke screen" argument. More properly titled ignoratio elenchi.

I already knew that, but I love Latin terms! Thanks, Steve.

~ Loki

 

[Makalakumu]

Is it even possible to "win" an argument in a medium like this? Or for that matter any "argument" that involves politics, religon, social issues etc? Just because one person is better at rhetoric, debate etc. only means that person is better at convincing, does it really "prove" his opinion is the "correct" one?

Yes, I do. Winning an argument is all about rules. It's like sparring. Science is a good example of these rules. I think the problems arise when people do not know the rules and do not know when they are beaten.

 

[Tgace]

Religon and Political opinion are far from science. On topics like those, debate appears to be more a tool for gaining consensus than ascertaining "fact".

 

[Melissa426]

What I find aggravating is trying to defend my position myself against arguments that lack critical thinking.

example:
a. Larry supports the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube which will lead, inevitably, to her death
b. Terri Schiavo is brain damaged and disabled
c. Therefore, Larry thinks all brain damaged and disabled people should die.

"C" is NOT true, but just an example of how some people who make these illogical jumps.

example #2.
a. Members of the extreme religious right oppose gay marriage.
b. Susie opposes gay marriage.
c. Susie is a member of the extreme religious right.

Again, "C" is not true. But this is how certain "wackos" on both sides of an issue are able to amass followings.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Makalakumu]

Religon and Political opinion are far from science. On topics like those, debate appears to be more a tool for gaining consensus than ascertaining "fact".

The rules will frame any good debate and I believe that they must be in place or violence will probably ensue. Or at least some of the jackassery we see in debates on internet forums...

With that being said...

"Facts" build consensus in an educated society and science is one means of differentiating fact from fiction. I don't think that one can have an opinion without basing it on some sort of "facts".

Therefore, I would posit that one is not entitled to any opinion they cannot defend.

upnorthkyosa

 

[arnisador]

"Facts" build consensus in an educated society and science is one means of differentiating fact from fiction. I don't think that one can have an opinion without basing it on some sort of "facts".

Therefore, I would posit that one is not entitled to any opinion they cannot defend.

Is a religious belief an opinion?

I'm a big believer in providing an argument, but one is entitled to an uninformed opinion...that opinion just doesn't merit respect, nor deserve a counterargument.