© Roger M Tagg 2010-2011
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
This is a mock serious presentation, from a front-rank 19th century German philosopher, of techniques people can use to make sure that they win every argument. Although it is more a warning for the other person in the argument to beware of such tricks, it is written as if it is advice to the person trying the tricks. Thouless's "Straight and Crooked Thinking" seems to cover somewhat similar ground, though that appeared much later than this book, and may have been written in partial answer to Schopenhauer.
You can download a full translation of this as part of a wider selection of Schopenhauer's minor works; translator was TB Saunders (1896).
| Seq | Trick | Explanation, or example | Counter (includes some personal suggestions) |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Extension | Exaggerating what your opponent said, hoping to knock it down | Repeat your moderate meaning |
| S2 | Homonyms | Using different meanings of the same words at different stages of the argument | Pick up on it quickly |
| S3 | Generalize, in order to refute | Over-generalize something your opponent has stated with specific conditions | Repeat your limiting conditions |
| S4 | Conceal your game | Get the opponent to agree to easy assumptions as you go | Watch out what you agree to |
| S5 | False premises | Assume something that isn't true | Point out the dodgy assumption quickly |
| S6 | Beg the question | Postulate as an assumption what one is trying to prove | Point this out |
| S7 | Yield admissions through questions | "You surely must agree that ...?" | If you don't agree, say why |
| S8 | Make your opponent angry | Keep calm | |
| S9 | Ask questions in deliberately odd order | Confuse the opponent and conceal your game | Ask "what are you getting at?" |
| S10 | Take advantage of an opponent who always answers "no" | Ask the question the opposite way round and hope to get inconsistent answers | Watch for the switch |
| S11 | Generalize admissions of specific cases | In that case, you are saying all ? | Say you don't think these cases prove the general point |
| S12 | Choose metaphors favourable to your proposition | Suggest a different metaphor to support your case | |
| S13 | Encourage opponent to reject the counter-argument | "So, do you also reject (the opposite viewpoint)?" | Check if this is a trap, or whether you hold some view in between |
| S14 | Claim victory despite defeat | Well, that was what I was saying | Point out why it hasn't been resolved |
| S15 | Substitute a truism for your difficult paradoxical proposal | E.g. "you can't change human nature" | Say this is far too simplistic |
| S16 | Point out inconsistencies between what your opponent has said and other beliefs he holds (ad hominem) | "Surely this is inconsistent with your belief that ..." | Show how these beliefs are not inconsistent (if possible!) |
| S17 | Defend your argument by introducing some subtle distinction | Claim "it isn't quite the same" | Explore whether or not it really makes a difference |
| S18 | If about to lose, divert the debate, appeal to any audience | Point out the tactic to the audience | |
| S19 | If pressed for any objection, generalize the matter, then argue against | Bring the argument back to specifics | |
| S20 | Draw conclusions yourself, even before all premises are agreed | "So, you therefore must agree that ..." | Say what hasn't yet been resolved |
| S21 | Counter with an argument as bad as his | Say that his argument makes no more sense | |
| S22 | Refuse to admit a point that would lead to your opponent winning | Say that you can see why he is reluctant to admit the point, move on to something related | |
| S23 | Contradict your opponent, encourage him to exaggerate | Don't be drawn into over-playing your point | |
| S24 | State a false syllogism, or distort your opponent's logic | Point out what doesn't follow | |
| S25 | Divert by finding one counter-example to opponent's generalization | "But the fact that there is Xxxx explodes that idea" | Examine if this really is a valid counter-example: it may be a matter of how things are being classified |
| S26 | Turn the tables | Use opponent's argument against him | Examine what the opponent has actually claimed |
| S27 | Stir it up more if opponent gets angry | It may be his weak point | Draw back from any excessive claim, keep calm |
| S28 | Persuade the audience, not the opponent | If the audience is interested, explain your point to them also | |
| S29 | Diversion, changing the subject | Bring in a side issue | Say "can we get back to the main point?" |
| S30 | Appeal to authority rather than reason | Because X says so | Question whether X has full knowledge of what we now know, or whether he had an interest to defend |
| S31 | Claim to fail to understand | Say "this is beyond me" | Try to paraphrase in simpler terms, without jargon |
| S32 | Label opponent's thesis with some odious category | "But this is Xxxx-ism!" | Show how and why it is different from Xxxx-ism. |
| S33 | Say "that may be OK in theory, but doesn't apply in practice" | Ask what examples from practice the opponent can quote | |
| S34 | Don't let him off the hook if he evades | If it's a weak spot for him, urge the point all the more | Be clear how far you can move your position, but don't avoid the issue |
| S35 | Will is more effective than insight | Make out that his point is against his values, interests etc | Recognize one's own prejudices and interests, and separate them from the issues that are really at stake |
| S36 | Bewilder opponent through bombast, rhetoric, say "it's obvious" etc | Examples in "The Vicar of Wakefield" | Modestly point out that the opponent is substituting style for argument |
| S37 | Claim that opponent's faulty proof refutes his whole position | Say "I had better express that better" and proceed to do so | |
| S38 | Become personal, insulting, rude ("ad personam") | "All mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one's own advantage" (Hobbes) | Let it wash over one's head |
| A few extra thoughts from Schopenhauer: | |||
| Don't dispute with the first person you meet - find someone of similar ability | |||
| Ad hominem = truth as it appears to an individual | |||
| Ad rem = objective truth | |||
| "The great truth is that the will's blind strivings are the reason why life consists of so much suffering." |
| Back to Book Highlights index | Back to Re-think home | Back to tagg.org |
The links below lead to the other components of PLOVER
| Philosophy | Language | Ontology | Value | Evolution | Religion |
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 13th January 2011