Winning an argument, or losing without tricks

Question

This might not be the correct forum, but it's the best I can think of..
I'm arguing about something, and am being superficially defeated not on the subject matter, but through tactics. I don't mind losing if the other guy demonstrates a weakness in my argument, but don't want to 'appear' to lose the point through tactics alone.

For example,

1. I'll make a point, and my opponent will contest a 'similar point'that is not mine. To a casual onlooker the difference, if I point it out, will look trivial and petty, but it isn't.

2. He'll allude vaguely to some relevant research that may or may notexist, and may or may not be relevant, but sounds very plausible. I can't prove a negative - I can't prove that nobody has ever done such research.

3. He'll somehow get several tricks of this nature into a concise fewsentences. If I were to challenge one, this would seem to ligitimise the others. If I challenge all of them, I'll look petty and 'nit- picking'.
I absolutely don't know how to deal with this. Schopenhauer's 38 tricks are very relevant here. I've read Schopenhauer (and Thouless) on this, but it really doesn't help except with the simplest cases. The real problem is the multiple use of tricks. Is there a forum where I can discuss this? Is there a powerful book? Anyone out there want to be my coach?
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html

Thanks
Tony

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]This might not be the correct forum, but it's the best I can think of.. I'm arguing about something, and ... forum where I can discuss this? Is there a powerful book? Anyone out there want to be my coach? http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html[/nq]
Face it, you'll never sound better on usenest than a skilled troll. Anyway, arguing is not (or rather, should not be) about scoring points but about getting to the truth; if your opponent isn't interested in that, you'd be better walking away than letting it get to you.

I seem to get trolls attacking me almost every time I post but just stick to my guns - and the truth. That's the important bit: to thine own self be true (and all that stuff).

New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!

David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

Usenet · Answer

tonyjeffs:
[nq:1]I'm arguing about something, and am being superficially defeated not on the subject matter, but through tactics. I don't mind losing if the other guy demonstrates a weakness in my argument, but don't want to 'appear' to lose the point through tactics alone.[/nq]
unless you feel at ease responding in kind, take Schopenhauer's advice and avoid arguments with `the common ruck of people'; such arguments will only drag you into chicanery.
i recommend The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation by Cha=EFm Perelmam and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, the depth and the coverage of which surpasses that of The Art of Controversy .

Jock

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]This might not be the correct forum, but it's the best I can think of.. I'm arguing about something, and ... I can discuss this? Is there a powerful book? Anyone out there want to be my coach? http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controvers... Thanks Tony[/nq]
Having read the posts in reply to your question
I did a quick search for forums devoted to the
arts of rhetoric, on the basis that you may not
be able to.
Two that I found were a umn (university of
minnesota) newsgroup suggesting that it's only
really the UK contingent of JANET which has
pulled all their groups so as to promote login
secured proprietary solutions for which seat
licenses must be purchased per head.
google only lists one subscriber to this group
but there is an archive. Similarly, there is a
LISTSERV active devoted to rhetoric hosted on
the MAELSTROM mail server at STJOHNS EDUcational
site.
Address e-mails in the first instance to the
listserv itself and use the ubiquitous e-mail
"AT" symbol to reliably direct your e-mail to
the hosted mailserver, building the address
using each of the capitalised terms as above
in the order given above with a full stop character between each one following the "AT" character.
In the first instance the body of your message
need only read HELP.
This information is given on the basis that no
further support can be offered generic listserv
applications hosted on remote machines.
However I suspect that what you want is not
really information on the art of rhetoric,
which originated with Aristotle, and is keyed
into formally addressing audiences in order to
persuade them on a one-to-many basis.
As such I did a quick search on "debate", purely
on the grounds it's actually rather closer to
what you're looking for.
A lot of the resources are aimed at students and
available as http:// protocol "web" pages. I'm
sure if you managed to post here that you'd be
able to conduct a search of this nature and
there were the by now entirely normal several
hundred thousand pages of "hits".
My feeling is that debating forums, whether they
happen to be publically or privately owned, are
far more likely to yield the kinds of strategic
and tactical gems you may find worthwhile.
I say this because "debate" still has a very
active, participatory, connotation whereas, in
all fairness, rhetoric tends to be something
"they" push onto "us" they being The Powers
That Be and which, these days, has an almost
overwhelmingly negative connotation.
In many ways the arts of rhetoric are traditionally geared up to structures within written texts
however as many kids, allegedly, leave school
understanding little more than that a "rhetorical
question" is a polite way of couching "sarcasm"
(which it isn't, but hey, it's not like I'm
a teacher so take that with a pinch of NaCl)
and rhetoric is something politics rests on,
which again it isn't really, I figured delving
into "debate" might better suit your immediate
ends.
Obviously there are strong paralinguistic elements in many forms of debate and of rhetoric which
get lost in the proceedings of, say, HANSARD
but some of the speeches have been recycled
so many times that any formal pointers toward
structuralism you may find in your wider reading
on the subject are likely to be found within its
Parliamentary digests (as opposed to the often
rather more interesting and markedly less formal
stuff that goes on in committee rooms and so
forth).
HTH
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1] suggesting that it's only really the UK contingent of JANET which has pulled all their groups so as to promote login secured proprietary solutions for which seat licenses must be purchased per head.[/nq]
I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but suspect it to be completely untrue.

John Briggs

Winning an argument, or losing without tricks

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions