|
Hey there! Do you find yourself constantly "outwitted" when discussing your views? When it comes to discussion, is "winning" more important than ideas you speak of? Are you anachronistically basking in glories of times long past? Are you a talentless hack who has somehow tricked a group of people to listen to your opinions? Then perhaps you're at the right place, and this guide is for you!
If you want to win arguments more often, it is not prudent to become less wrong (as this is very time consuming, and rather fruitless for oafs); instead, you should learn the skills and arts of Argumentation. I have divided the tactics into easy to digest subcategories: offense and defense. Lets have a look!
Offense: Simplification and Abstraction
When someone states their views, the first step is to study what they said word for word. Once in a while, your opponent will have blatantly contradictory views, and the battle is already won. However, these are not the opponents that you'll be needing Argumentation to deal with. Most of the time, their views will be sound, rooted in evidence, and well thought out. This is when you use the skills of Simplification and Abstraction to find "hidden" contradictions.
Simplification is easy enough; you take what their argument and remove the nuances (or facts altogether) and restate their views in an untenable way. The most common structure to Simplification involves "So what you're basically saying is..." Use this sentence structure, lead into a claim that somewhat resembles their claim, and Viola! You've gained an important advantage.
Abstraction is very similar. You take a claim of his argument (perhaps simplify a little) and apply it to a different situation. The best way to lead in is to say, "So if [abstract situation], you would [be a complete asshole in this way]." It doesn't matter how obscure said situation is, as the moment your opponent fails to keep his rules consistent among every conceivable situation, he is a hypocrite (and you may call him as such). Your opponent may concede in frustration, or he may try to defend his view with the inevitable, "That's different" to which you respond, "How is it different?" Should he respond, interrupt him, "How is it different" with increasing intensity until he gives up.
Note that you do not need to uproot their entire argument with this strategy; you only need to make your opponent look like an ass, winning you the hearts and minds of the audience before you. Inevitably he will become flustered that you've beaten him, and will become less able to defend his view.
Defense: Concession and Deflection
However, it is not enough to be able to debase other's views, as sometimes your own views may come under scrutiny. To deal with said scrutiny, you will use the tools of Concession and Deflection. How do these work, you may ask? Lets take a look.
Concession is to "give up" on a point, or to give in. This may seem contradictory to winning an argument, but we have a trick up our sleeves. When we concede, we concede to points that our opponent isn't arguing for. This, in effect, convinces our audience that our opponent is arguing for said point, and with dexterity, will win you an argument outright. This is great for a finishing move, as it puts words in your opponent's mouth while giving you a chance to respond to it immediately. Your opponent is left two steps back, trying to deny that he pushed for said point, to which you can move on, or you can respond, "Oh, I thought we were done talking about how you think [untenable position]. Okay Okay, I'll hear you out, again"
Deflection involves attacks on your person. When using Argumentation, it is unavoidable to amass a slew of haters, and do you know what The Game says about haters? Fuck the haters. I bust up on their skull with my chrome four-fifth and pop bottles of bubbly while I fuck your girlfriend. Direct quote.
When someone attacks your person, you can choose to defend yourself, which is wise, but when you outright lose, Deflect it. The best ways to do this are to attach said trait to your personality, as in "Thats just who I am," or "Some people just can't handle my personality." (The former is the primary choice of addicts; the latter, fourteen year old girls). You can also choose to attach it to normal behavior, as in "I'm just joking," and while you're at it, throw in a concession: "If that makes me a bad person, then I guess I won't joke anymore."
I hope you find this guide useful, but be warned. Though it will win you many arguments, it will not win you many friends. As always, thanks for reading.
|
The best way to see these powers in action:
+ Show Spoiler +
I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically.
|
On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically.
If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point.
|
On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point.
If zerg requires skill to play how come i can get an 80% win ratio in bronze only 6 pooling?
Hypocrite.
|
On May 10 2011 04:59 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point. If zerg requires skill to play how come i can get an 80% win ratio in bronze only 6 pooling? Hypocrite.
*wipes a tear* you've learned so well ^^
|
On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point.
You need to add a paragraph on how to finish the discussion, as in this case with: GG NO RE NOOB!
|
On May 10 2011 05:00 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:59 Bippzy wrote:On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point. If zerg requires skill to play how come i can get an 80% win ratio in bronze only 6 pooling? Hypocrite. *wipes a tear* you've learned so well ^^
Thanks:D
GG NO RM NUBSALTINE
|
On May 10 2011 04:46 gods_basement wrote:
Abstraction is very similar. You take a claim of his argument (perhaps simplify a little) and apply it to a different situation. The best way to lead in is to say, "So if [abstract situation], you would [be a complete asshole in this way]." It doesn't matter how obscure said situation is, as the moment your opponent fails to keep his rules consistent among every conceivable situation, he is a hypocrite (and you may call him as such). Your opponent may concede in frustration, or he may try to defend his view with the inevitable, "That's different" to which you respond, "How is it different?" Should he respond, interrupt him, "How is it different" with increasing intensity until he gives up.
.....
this isn't arguing
It's turning the "debate" into a shouting contest.
I hope you realize strawman is a logical fallacy, right?
(Strawman)
If your opponent gives up, it's not because you've won an "argument," it's because he has realized you are a horrific troll whose only purpose is to annoy. Topic title should be renamed "Trolling for Dummies" since you clearly don't know how to actually present an argument or engage in discourse.
edit: wait, this is sarcasm and satire, possibly of arguments on TL itself, isn't it? I feel dumb now. Well played. I didn't actually read the "defense" part before posting, which makes it REALLY obvious lolololol
|
On May 10 2011 04:59 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point. If zerg requires skill to play how come i can get an 80% win ratio in bronze only 6 pooling? Hypocrite.
+ Show Spoiler +
I think I found the problem.
|
On May 10 2011 05:06 xxpack09 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:46 gods_basement wrote:
Abstraction is very similar. You take a claim of his argument (perhaps simplify a little) and apply it to a different situation. The best way to lead in is to say, "So if [abstract situation], you would [be a complete asshole in this way]." It doesn't matter how obscure said situation is, as the moment your opponent fails to keep his rules consistent among every conceivable situation, he is a hypocrite (and you may call him as such). Your opponent may concede in frustration, or he may try to defend his view with the inevitable, "That's different" to which you respond, "How is it different?" Should he respond, interrupt him, "How is it different" with increasing intensity until he gives up.
..... this isn't arguing It's turning the "debate" into a shouting contest. I hope you realize strawman is a logical fallacy, right? (Strawman)If your opponent gives up, it's not because you've won an "argument," it's because he has realized you are a horrific troll whose only purpose is to annoy. Topic title should be renamed "Trolling for Dummies" since you clearly don't know how to actually present an argument or engage in discourse.
You just can't handle his personality.
|
On May 10 2011 05:08 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:59 Bippzy wrote:On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point. If zerg requires skill to play how come i can get an 80% win ratio in bronze only 6 pooling? Hypocrite. + Show Spoiler +I think I found the problem.
The game should be balanced for every level of play, don't be such a superiorist.
The amount of skill required to attack and defend should be similar, not skewed.
Don't league hate
|
On May 10 2011 05:11 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 05:08 Sotamursu wrote:On May 10 2011 04:59 Bippzy wrote:On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point. If zerg requires skill to play how come i can get an 80% win ratio in bronze only 6 pooling? Hypocrite. + Show Spoiler +I think I found the problem. The game should be balanced for every level of play, don't be such a superiorist. The amount of skill required to attack and defend should be similar, not skewed. Don't league hate
Cars aren't balanced to let blind people drive. l2p
|
On May 10 2011 05:06 xxpack09 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:46 gods_basement wrote:
Abstraction is very similar. You take a claim of his argument (perhaps simplify a little) and apply it to a different situation. The best way to lead in is to say, "So if [abstract situation], you would [be a complete asshole in this way]." It doesn't matter how obscure said situation is, as the moment your opponent fails to keep his rules consistent among every conceivable situation, he is a hypocrite (and you may call him as such). Your opponent may concede in frustration, or he may try to defend his view with the inevitable, "That's different" to which you respond, "How is it different?" Should he respond, interrupt him, "How is it different" with increasing intensity until he gives up.
..... this isn't arguing It's turning the "debate" into a shouting contest. I hope you realize strawman is a logical fallacy, right? (Strawman)If your opponent gives up, it's not because you've won an "argument," it's because he has realized you are a horrific troll whose only purpose is to annoy. Topic title should be renamed "Trolling for Dummies" since you clearly don't know how to actually present an argument or engage in discourse. edit: wait, this is sarcasm and satire, possibly of arguments on TL itself, isn't it? I feel dumb now. Well played. I didn't actually read the "defense" part before posting, which makes it REALLY obvious lolololol
well thanks for linking me to a wikipedia article about logical fallacies. let me return the favor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_the_point (and click the link for extra deep trolling goodness)
|
A trolltastic style of defending your integrity is to just say you were trolling.
|
Did you just teach people how to use logical fallacies to obfusticate logical arguments?
|
On May 10 2011 06:03 MangoTango wrote:
Did you just teach people how to use logical fallacies to obfusticate logical arguments?
it had a deeper underlying commentary that i guess was too subtle for the TL community
|
|
|
United States5162 Posts
Well played, good sir. Well played.
|
On May 10 2011 05:49 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 05:11 Bippzy wrote:On May 10 2011 05:08 Sotamursu wrote:On May 10 2011 04:59 Bippzy wrote:On May 10 2011 04:55 gods_basement wrote:On May 10 2011 04:53 Bippzy wrote:The best way to see these powers in action: + Show Spoiler +I think zerg is underpowered because their scouting results in a guessing game where they die or are behing economically. If you're saying that zerg requires skill to play, and that you dont have any, then i guess i see your point. If zerg requires skill to play how come i can get an 80% win ratio in bronze only 6 pooling? Hypocrite. + Show Spoiler +I think I found the problem. The game should be balanced for every level of play, don't be such a superiorist. The amount of skill required to attack and defend should be similar, not skewed. Don't league hate Cars aren't balanced to let blind people drive. l2p
You say cars arent balanced, but when i drive my car it doesnt tip over, so cars ARE balanced.
You are a liar, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
