|
How to win any argument
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
Works from the 20th century onward:
----------
1. Pick controversial but tired-out political or philosophical issue {discrimination / free speech / US foreign policy / Zionism / homosexuality / war / religion}.
2. Identify own view as radical and divergent.
3. Identify opponent as being part of opposing mainstream group {whites / men / Americans / heterosexuals / Christians / atheists / right-wingers}.
4. Make sweeping generalizations about (mainstream group) that they are all too {afraid / stupid / closed-minded} to accept divergent viewpoints, while ignoring any factual evidence or logic they may present.
5. Exclaim that this is unfair and that (divergent group) should have the same {rights / recognition / freedom} as (mainstream group).
6. Urge opponent not to be a part of the big evil collective of (mainstream group) and to respect their opinion.
----------
Works every time! Guaranteed! The best part is, it even works when the "divergent" group is actually mainstream, as long as it has a past history of being divergent! And even if your opponent doesn't accept your argument, you still get that warm fuzzy feeling knowing that you went down fighting in a valiant attempt to save your fellow (members of divergent group). :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| Ummm, ummmm, you're biased. |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Works from the 20th century onward:
----------
1. Pick controversial but tired-out political or philosophical issue {discrimination / free speech / US foreign policy / Zionism / homosexuality / war / religion}. |
Until a solution has been found to the problems resulting form the issues you’ve stated (homosexuality, US foreign policy etc.), they can’t be described as “tired-out”. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spin Doctor
Until a solution has been found to the problems resulting form the issues you’ve stated (homosexuality, US foreign policy etc.), they can’t be described as “tired-out”. |
I think what s/he means by 'tired out' is that the majority of people who hear it are tired of hearing it, even though [whatever problem] needs to be fixed. |
|
|
| Flotser |
:cool: nice colors dude.
:p |
|
|
| Genesis Evolved |
Crying.
It's worked for women since God knows when. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Genesis Evolved
Crying.
It's worked for women since God knows when. |
The steps above are, basically, crying (or at least whining) - just in a very long, drawn-out, rhetorical kind of way. It's an extension of "poor me" into "poor us". :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Flotser
:cool: nice colors dude.
:p |
It's all about clarity. :) |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Works from the 20th century onward:
----------
1. Pick controversial but tired-out political or philosophical issue {discrimination / free speech / US foreign policy / Zionism / homosexuality / war / religion}.
2. Identify own view as radical and divergent.
3. Identify opponent as being part of opposing mainstream group {whites / men / Americans / heterosexuals / Christians / atheists / right-wingers}.
4. Make sweeping generalizations about (mainstream group) that they are all too {afraid / stupid / closed-minded} to accept divergent viewpoints, while ignoring any factual evidence or logic they may present.
5. Exclaim that this is unfair and that (divergent group) should have the same {rights / recognition / freedom} as (mainstream group).
6. Urge opponent not to be a part of the big evil collective of (mainstream group) and to respect their opinion.
----------
Works every time! Guaranteed! The best part is, it even works when the "divergent" group is actually mainstream, as long as it has a past history of being divergent! And even if your opponent doesn't accept your argument, you still get that warm fuzzy feeling knowing that you went down fighting in a valiant attempt to save your fellow (members of divergent group). :) |
you're wrong, thats not the sure way of winning any argument
:p |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
How to win an argument on this board:
State your initial stance.
When someone rebuts your stance with reasons backed by sources:
A) Say their reply is overly opinionated or biased.
B) Say their sources are also biased or lacking credibility.
Finish with a repeat of your initial stance. Modify it subtly so that it appears you actually rethought and retooled your arguement. In your reply do not directly disprove any of the points brought against your views.
Repeat these steps until those arguing against you become frustrated to the point at which they will no longer reply.
You win. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
How to win an argument on this board:
State your initial stance.
When someone rebuts your stance with reasons backed by sources:
A) Say their reply is overly opinionated or biased.
B) Say their sources are also biased or lacking credibility.
Finish with a repeat of your initial stance. Modify it subtly so that it appears you actually rethought and retooled your arguement. In your reply do not directly disprove any of the points brought against your views.
Repeat these steps until those arguing against you become frustrated to the point at which they will no longer reply.
You win. |
:stongue:
C)Rebut them back with sources and credibility |
|
|
| Izzy |
another tip:
 |
|
|
|
|
