How To Argue And Win - Blog Day Afternoon Posted by Jeff (Wednesday March 17 2004 @ 08:47PM EST)

Straw Man - Unless your name is Bill O'Liely, at some your opponent is going to raise a valid point. In this case, it's easier to refute something they didn't say rather then something they did. Unfortunately, you can't refute just anything. You need to twist its meaning and then attack the terrible point you just made. Them: We should reduce defense spending You: Typical liberal. You want to leave us completely defenseless. Ad Hominem - Unless you're Ann Coulter, your opponent is probably a real person rather than a conglomerate of everything you despise. Real people often cite real stats in order to support their point. A hard stat is difficult to refute. In this case, you'll have to tear down the person who presented it. Them: Well according to the CDC, more people committed suicide in 1950 than 2000. You: What do you know? You're fat! Appeal To Popularity - Unless you're Pat Robertson, there is a chance your opponent may support an unpopular view. In these instances, you need only call out the herd in order to squash him like a grape. Them: Fossilic evidence indicates homo sapien evolved in Africa then populated the globe. You: 85% of Americans believe in the bible and the bible says God created man in the Garden of Eden, not in Africa. Slippery Slope - Unless your name is Sean Hannity, that liberal you're yelling at can probably make a valid point or two. Whenever he makes a valid point, push it down the slippery slope until it snowballs all over him. Them: Madatory prayer in public school violates the doctrine of church and state. You: If children aren't forced to pray, then they'll never learn about God. If they never learn about God, then they'll never learn wrong from right. The next thing you know, you got a mass murderer on your hands. Begging The Question - Unless your name is George W. Bush, people will expect evidence to support your claims. The easiest way to support your claim is to use it in support of itself. Them: There is no God. You:  Of course there is. Haven't you read the bible? Them: Why should I believe the bible? You:  Because God wrote it! Duh.

< Stiff | March 20, 2003 >

By The Pragmatist (Wednesday March 17 2004 @ 09:43PM EST)

I would also add one that technically comes under ad hominem but given its widespread abuse deserves a line of its own: the ad clintonem. Them: The President provides strong leadership in uncertain times. You: Save for the initial response in Afghanistan, hasn't every foreign and domestic decision made by this "leader" been a debacle, the price of which is paid by average Americans?" Them: Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton

[ reply | parent ]

By Funkman (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 06:59AM EST) Usually the comeback is "at least this president has morals unlike like that intern banging, cheating of a husband Clinton." [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 07:06AM EST) Funny how the morality slate is tallied based on how many times you've been blown as opposed how many people you've blown up. [ reply | parent ]

By Cosy G. (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 08:36AM EST)

You forgot Appeal to Civility or Ad Rodneykingeum: Them: Heh, heh. This is going to pi55 people off! You:  Wait whoa! Wait whoa! Them: Can't we all just get along?

[ reply | parent ]

By Anonymous (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 11:57AM EST)

Clintons morality is based on both being blown and blowing people up. Only difference is there have been mass graves found in Iraq, but none in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Waco, TX. Oh wait there is a mass graves in Waco, TX Caused by Hillary, because Bill was in another room being Blown.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 01:15PM EST) This is ad clintoneum, but I find it necessary to correct the record: Mass graves in Kosovo Mass graves in Bosnia There are indeed mass graves (or large ash piles) in Waco. The evidence I've seen indicates that the Branch Davidians burnt themselves to the ground. However, the Justice Department did allowed Waco to become a fiasco in no small part due to its own incompetence. Koresh could have been picked up on the street without incident. That Clinton didn't fire Reno after Waco makes him culpable. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 02:35PM EST) Interesting that these mass graves hold only a few dozen people. The rest is conjecture: "investigators believe..." and "...believed to have been massacred." It is 2004, and still no physical evidence. Just like those WOMDs in Iraq. I guess I was as critical of Clinton as I am of Bush, but you can be partisan if you'd like. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 03:30PM EST) Feel free to issue ad hominem attacks, but Anonymous claimed no evidence of mass graves. Even if we use your number, "a few dozen people" in a hole fits just about any definition of mass grave. I didn't even mention Clinton in that section of this comment, yet you assumed that I was defending him? That's nice. Any other things I didn't do that you want to accuse me of? [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 03:35PM EST) Actually, that number is from YOUR source. Whether or not that size mass grave makes Kosovo qualify as a just war is left as an exercise for the reader. You certainly did mention Clinton: "This is ad clintoneum..." My main point, that the allegations of extensive mass graves has still been unproven, stands. A few dozen bodies is to Kosovo genocide what a college with a physics department is to Iraq WOMDs... [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 03:54PM EST) As I've interpreted it, ad clintoneum is a diversionary tactic designed to steer the conversation to the wrong doings of a certain former president. Given that understanding, I labeled it thus. I'm not sure how defining a tactic makes me a partisan supporter of the ex-president, a man I don't particularly like. Your main point is a straw man. We were talking about mass graves in Kosovo. Until you made this "point" nobody mentioned extensive mass graves or genocide. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 04:33PM EST) The context was as justification for war. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 04:46PM EST) What blog was that on? [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 06:20PM EST) Jeff, did you have nightmares about scarecrows when you were a child? [ reply | parent ]

By kevin the one-armed boy (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 08:33PM EST)

I'm real late with this one but since you brought it up.... "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, Evolutionist 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 09:26PM EST) I've never heard of "special creation." But bones fill the realm of paleo-anthropologists from whom we've learned the Out of Africa model. It was only after geneticists honed their tools that they were able to produce a similar model. It's dates didn't quite correspond with the former, but its migratory patterns did. It should be noted that fringe elements from both disciplines continue to promote other models, such as independent development but I feel they've presented little to support their claim. BTW: I never would have thought you had an interest in this. As my bookshelf will attest, next to the Great War, paleoanthropology is one of my favorite subjects. (I had to exert great discipline in order not to ramble on...) For a great glimpse into that world, I recommend Neanderthal Enigma by James Shreeve: [ reply | parent ]

By kevin the one-armed boy (Friday March 19 2004 @ 07:42AM EST) Granted there are fringe elements on both sides. There are also a lot of experts on both sides (there are more on yours but I don't consider that proof of being "right"). Many PHD's/researchers/experts - some of them evolutionists - think that the fossilic evidence for transitionary species is non-existent. I hate to beat this to death with quotes but I'm NOT an expert - these people are. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.… Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen Gould [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Friday March 19 2004 @ 09:02AM EST) I think you've confused my last comment. I wasn't referring to a conflict between paleoanthropologists and geneticists (specifically, molecular anthropologists), rather one between those who support Out of Africa and those who support Mutli-Regional Development. According to the former, all modern human development occurred in Africa and migrational waves replaced archaic humans. The latter model suggests that contemporary humans developed from archaic forms. I chose this debate in order to illustrate the way fossilic evidence supports genetic models. After the Mitochondria genome was mapped, computer models rendered the migratory patterns of humans. Early efforts were rather flawed by sampling short comings. But later models fit nicely over the fossilic pin points. Ultimately genetic modeling will provide the comprehensive picture, but details will be provided by paleoanthropologists whose work I find far more interesting. In the end, the model for human evolution will have to account for all the evidence, including language development, cultural idiosyncrasies (for lack of a better term), technological development, etc. Matt will disagree with me, but the story of human evolution is not the exclusive property of biologists. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Friday March 19 2004 @ 11:11AM EST) Why would I disagree with you? [ reply | parent ]

By Major Domo (Monday August 04 2008 @ 08:36PM EDT)

This whole blog is absolute crap you have no clue how to argue every one of yor points is crap. How the heck does calling some one fat prove your point or using the bible as a talking point. The first testament talks about multiple wives does that mean we should have them because 85% believes in the bible. And another thing how is saying we should not have prayer in schools the same as having no religion at all, and every child will be a murderer.WE are just restricting it to places out side of school not banning it all together, we have not aloud prayer in schools for along time now and our country is not dominated by murders. You are nuts and have no clue how to argue, i hope you are not a lawyer.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday August 13 2008 @ 09:12AM EDT) If satire falls in a forest and you can't recognize it as such, does it make a sound? [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!