I want to get better at arguments, help?

I have a very destructive view of accomplishing competitive tasks. It doesn't concern me that I should win, only that others should lose. When I play Uno, I specifically get a shit ton of cards just so I can use them all to slow down and piss off other people. So when I'm in an argument, the only thing I'll ever do is ask questions. I'll never make a statement, not once. Every single time someone responds to me, I ask them why their statement is true or what validity it has. When they respond to that, I continue to ask about it's reason. You see, unless someone has an ungodly amount of knowledge and confidence in what they're arguing for, this method will destroy them every time. And they never have that much knowledge or confidence in what they're arguing for. Just note it's important to ask the questions in the most innocuous way possible. You can not under any circumstances hint at any implications whatsoever, otherwise they'll stop trying to construct an argument and start throwing accusations right back at you. The fun is when they can't figure out how to argue anymore. So basically just avoid the word "you" at all times.
You won't "win" the argument, you'll just whittle them down until they're a panicked mess. They might be too pissed off or confused to be persuaded to your side of things, but, it's fucking funny lol.

And, even in the off-chance they are indestructible in their beliefs, you can always learn a thing or two from their point of view, and gracefully bow to them instead of having to embarrass yourself by sacrificing any beliefs or points you've brought up (since you won't be bringing any up).
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Dilligaff and Coldgrip
1493993226750.jpg


A relatively good primer on mistakes either you or your peers make in an argument
 
  • Winner
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Autopsy and The Fool
Bogs said:
View attachment 534112
[that one image everyone uses]
A relatively good primer on mistakes either you or your peers make in an argument
Click to expand...
Pay special attention to the Fallacy Fallacy, it's the one that overzealous would-be debaters commit most often. Here are a couple of examples considering the list itself slightly more closely:
Yes, Colin Closet probably is using a slippery slope when he equates being permissive of same-sex unions to things like marrying monkeys, but if real-world John Doe notices that there are neat little implications of future agendas and euphemistic references to monkey-marriage in the "Make Gay Marriage Legal Again" platform, then pointing out he's using the "slippery slope" will only re-affirm his growing anti same-sex union convictions.
Yes, the senator was using the genetic fallacy as a smokescreen by tarring the media over being unreliable, but if this (surely hypothetical) media really is unreliable and has made no effort to improve their reporting standards, is he wrong? More pertinently, a real genetic fallacy would be to assert along the lines that research being done by old white dudes was wrong and bad because they believed slavery was acceptable and that made them wrong and bad people in general, a la UCT. These situations do not resemble each-other, because if from a statistical and historic perspective the (purely hypothetical) media is shit at reporting on politics truthfully, and they are reporting on politics, that is a valid concern or point to raise in your defense. The general populace who clearly has this gutfeel and mistrust of media will agree with the senator, no matter how genetic his jeans are.
By the same token, yes Shamus' appeal to bandwagon is probably wrong, but he touches on a much greater topic by doing so- the very general feeling of a culture is correct or has at some point had some legitimate grounding more often than not as a token of autonomous Darwinistic behavior. Leprechauns are almost assuredly not real, but that doesn't mean they never were real (anthropological explanation of superstitions), do not represent something (social science explanation of shared stories) or never needed to be real (empirical/biological predictions of religiosity) and if you just say that everyone is wrong for no good reason, you're going to get one angry drunkard Shamus and no one leaves any more cognizant or informed.
Arguing in these ways and as though the points are invalidated by the fallacy itself, if such a thing even truly exists, will not help you in any way. Use these as diagnostic tools, not as magical win buttons.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Fool
just try not to get too worked up, if the other person is screaming and you're calm they'll feel like a dumbass later on. just keep cool, man.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NotSoAceCat
kinglordsupreme19 said:
The KingLordSupreme19 guide to getting mad pussy and being a philosopher king​

1) Do not seek to 'win' at arguments. You should approach arguments as an opportunity to learn; instead of seeking to 'beat' opponents, approach their arguments as if you want to improve their arguments or make them more robust.



2) Do not be afraid to ask for sources for more extraordinary claims, but also have enough good faith in your interlocutor to believe they are not making shit up when what they're talking about seems reasonable.



3) Always begin from a position of good faith. Be polite to your interlocutor, but be merciless the moment they begin to be rude. You should seek ideally to find the high-level generator of disagreement - the key philosophical or psychological difference between you two that is irreconcilable but to which you can both reasonable disagree over.



4) Don't be an insecure little bitch who thinks that disagreement means that your opponent is necessarily with bad intent. This is a consequence of rule 3, but is also something you should realise when someone fails at logic; people can be wrong and not utterly corrupt. If someone is wrong, use the Socratic method.
Click to expand...
Tl;Dr watch the movie "Thank You for Smoking"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Fool
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back