This is inspired by a debate I've been having with a friend. These are the ways that she makes points. I'm not a very argumentative person, unless an opinion strikes me as tragically wrong. But then I try, and these are the ways that she responds.
1. Distraction -
Someone always says something that can be bent or twisted into favor of your argument. Ignore all of the good points that someone makes, construct a strawman out of the most objectionable remnant, and then respond to the strawman. Bonus points for a strawman that also happens to be true.
Ex.
B: "... besides, there are many Klingons in support of the Romulans in this instance, so it can't be incursive."
A: "But, you see, just because a Klingon says that the Romulans are not invading the system does not make it so. There are many instances where Klingons can be swayed by Romulan rhetoric or riches. Besides, we both know what the Enterprise found. (Blah blah blah discussion of findings)"
B: "Just because a human says that the Romulans invaded the system does not make it so."
But... I wasn't making that argument.
2. Aspersions of credible sources -
After linking to a source that people would generally agree had at least some truth in it, you must regard it as a lie. Wholeheartedly. Refer to no specifics in the article, as those are traction for the interlocutor to rebuff your aspersions. If you would be tempted to rebuff it even a little bit, call it a lie. There is no room for ambiguity.
Ex.
A: Well, okay, but there's been an interesting article written about the event by (famous political figure). I don't fully agree with it myself, but I think that the general observations hold some water.
B: LIES.
3. Discredit the reader -
So they're still not agreeing with you? Well, that must mean that they aren't well-read or researched. So, first, reflect on how well-read you are. Wait, do you see what I did there? Hah, a joke! Why would I ever ask you to reflect on your own argument?
Ex.
B: You are the perfect example of Federation ignorance, being unable to read or do research sufficiently on galactic issues. Stop spouting your Federation lies.
4. Cite a book you've read -
Oh, it doesn't matter whether it's the only one you've read or not. Cliffnotes are acceptable, as is the Wikipedia article. What matters is that you agree fervently with it. Credibility optional.
Ex.
B:If I might recommend, you should take a look at Romulus: The Last Best Hope. You'd change your mind. Romulus has done so much to advance the interests and liberties of everyone in the sector.
5. Bias is whatever you aren't -
You are unbiased. Everyone else is biased. If someone calls you biased, call out their bias to refute them. Feel free to call out their bias first, to set them at the defensive. Never fight directly the charge that you're biased. After all, they're biased to say such a thing.
Ex.
A: You really don't see the bias in Romulus?
B: You don't see the bias in A People's History of the Federation?
A: I do. But you're biased even compared to pretty credible centrist sources, like A Federation Pageant.
B: More Federation lies, I see. Why don't you just admit you're biased?
6. Make an exclamation of dismay -
Because all but the best arguers will worry about dismaying the other side. Bonus if you mimic the exact dismay that the other person was already thinking about you.
Ex.
B: Oh! Why are you siding with such xenophobic hounds like the Vulcans? I really thought better of you!
7. The bandwagon always sojourns towards the right place -
This can be anything from an informal poll to a psychological study, but let's face it, you'll probably skew towards the more informal, because credibility doesn't matter. A majority is a mandate. A mandate is the argument won!
Ex.
B: Well, most people in this sector would disagree with you, given the recent poll issued on the Federation net.
Nov 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)