Schopenhauer and Nietzche, from this guy Pat
My favorite imaginary friend Lifehacker had an interesting link to ‘How to Win an Argument‘. The page is a list of tips from the philosopher Schopenhauer, and they’re very interesting. It’s interesting seeing what I like to use, and what other people are using on me. Many people that comment here (and anywhere) seem to rarely stray from #38. Some of my personal favorites are, ‘make your opponent angry’, ‘put their assertions in an odius category’ and ‘use your opponents beliefs against them’.
*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.
Why Morq tried to expand the Private Unis thing to Privatization in general, and why I didn’t want to
*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.
Why I like Marx. None of these self-proclaimed Marxists are, they just like having the posters at their totalitarian rallies. Not referring to Morquendi here, who generally dislikes the same groups I do.
*8) Make your opponent angry*. An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.
self-explanatory
*27) Should your opponent suprise 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.
*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
# That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited
# The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience.
Communism is a favorite of mine. Also Nationalism. Terrorism is dropped so lightly nowadays that it’s pretty much useless.
And this is what I get,
*35) Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive*. If you success 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.
I get douchebags contributing nada except speculations on my personality. A special favorite is my merit as a Sri Lankan, often employed by people like Shanaka who are actually in the UK
*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.
This is pretty much the standard. The amount of comments that could be distilled to ‘You suck. Shut up’ is probably about 50%.
A personal favourite listed all the way down at 38? :)
i love arguing. and better yet, i love winning arguments. as a debator, i love taking someone else’s case and wiping the floor with it. however, i dont, and never have agreed with #38. when i see someone getting personal, and beginning to attack their opponent with below the belt, personal remarks, all it tells me is that the person has no logical argument to begin with. if you know what you know, and believe what you believe, what use is there in being personally insulting and rude? its like a half – win, in that case. i think its much more fun and satisfying to win an argument by shredding your opponents argument based purely on convinction, logic and sense.
If you leave that insulting thing out(#38), it is the method of Socrates + sophists!!!.
I am not Socrates so I include #38 in my toolkit… just in case….I think most of us do…
There’s another great tactic. Drive your opponent to put Godwin’s Law in to action. That basically ends the argument without anyone getting too hurt to argue again on some other stupid matter.
Then there’s that other great way to argue. You don’t. Maintain your zen-like silence and the opponent will get the shit from the audience.
Indi. I share Morq’s frustrated grief at your blinkered viewing of some comments that you don’t take kindly to. Upto now I have NEVER questioned your merit as a Sri Lankan. I have taken offence at your flippant remarks, and I have endeavoured to show you the other side of the coin in the most civil manner possible. I have been told to fuck myself. While my schlong maybe large it does not extend that far.
Yes I have told you that you need to cultivate a sense of humour and my manner of dealing with people (and I’ll be the first to admit) is hardly of the kid glove school. The only reason I have ribbed you about your obsession with the WB, Quebec and Ohio, is because you accuse others (not least of all myself) of only bringing their own experiences to the party.
If you have the time or the inclination (the latter which I doubt), do tell me when I have used Strategy No. 35. Comments in response to G-Man notwithstanding of course.
I am in UK for a year. Not a very long time in the grand scheme of things. I am coming back unlike several who don’t. Please don’t imply some form of hypocrisy in your obviously vindictive italics. It is inaccurate and unfair. Thank you.
Ado, it’s all getting very tense in here, I can feel the alpha males rearing on their hind legs and possibly roaring, or bleating. Over here Sophist is using big big words and over there Seelan’s talking about a woman in every port, does a boy in every port matter so much? I’m thinking everyone should chill out with a long vodka, and have lots and lots of sex to clear up the system if possible then everyone can wake up fresh as daisies with the milk of human kindness oozing from every pore and god could i have added any more metaphors to that little mix?
Ruwani, ease off on the alcohol :)
Ruwani – I agree about the alcohol and sex part but sadly sophist doesn’t run in these things as often as he would like…High tuition fees means no bottles, girlfriend in SL means no sex. Hence the tension. As his oldest buddy, I’ve always liked shananka the way he is, damn annoying..Its a gift very few can carry out so well, he does it justice, no pun intended.
Morquendi – I can spare the brain cells.
Dilshan, the first time I met Shanaka we had a massive flare-up, after the very first word that he directed at me I was ready to gouge his eye out and feed them to him. Pureed. Since then, I’ve realised that he’s actually a bloody talented bugger, with quite an analytical brain, and strangely for all his bs, he appears to be quite principled. I’m used to the highest degrees of arrogance, in fact I’m one of the most arrogant people you’d meet. And no I don’t want him to change either. But at the same time I know for a fact that I don’t want Indi to change either, they’re both interesting and it would be terribly boring if Sophist declared a blog strike, or Indi just lost his cool with all of us and told us all to piss off. But I do think everyone needs to take a step back and chill for a second and realise that they are contributing to a dialogue, the significance of which, in the greater scheme of things can’t possibly be understood now. I sound like a proper lefty here.
Sophist, for what it’s worth coming from me, I hope you decide to stay on.
I still say that expecting balance, equal coverage for all points of view or relative freedom from bias… or even absence of editorializing from Indi is expecting too much. I told Seelan that before too. It’s _his_ blog, after all. Sorry, I’m just calling it like I see it. I’ve taken unpopular anti-groupthink stances here before. When what’s said here stops mattering to me, I’m taking off.
And dude, I for one don’t see how your present location has much relevance to what you’ve been saying thus far.
Dude Thimal – I’ve been trying to find out the relevance of my present location as much as you have, since it was so graciously pointed out to me.
Arsenal won the Cup. I”ve just got back home and been advised to read VI by the ever inflammotary Ru. I must say I was taken aback. A whole blog – dedicated to me. The sincerest form of flattery indeed.
As much as I would like to respond now I must dash – I have a social life, and it’s Saturday night. Arsenal, Arsenal, Arsenal!!!
Sophist heard the match was in cardiff.. i cud hv sworn it was in London judging by the police presence at Paddington station sat nite… hmmm… heard it went to penalty shoot out as well.. think they’ll hv a rerun i wud love to watch it..:) where did u watch the match?