How to Argue?

redpillfriend · 2015-12-23T09:44:49+00:00

Do you want to be 'correct' in the debate or do you want to win the argument? They are not necessarily mutually exclusive but you can lean to one side or the other. Being correct in the debate simply means that you have better points and communicate them better. 'Winning the argument' can require less finesse and often can use the fallacies you discussed. It's not about being right but looking like you are right.

Read some some of socrates' dialogues. He was such a pain in the ass for his city by being so good at arguing that they killed him for it.

animalpoo · 2015-12-23T09:48:52+00:00

With general aggressive arguments, I follow a straight forward pattern. The objective is to get them on the defense and trap them in an unbreakable loop.

1) Pin point an insecurity i.e. "you obese, diabetes dodging mother fucker"

2) wait for them to defend ( remember you never defend any points made about you just attack or snigger)

3) point at how there body has reacted/overreacted and emphasize how much 1) has obviously hurt them such as " wow i didn't realize you were so sensitive about your weight, you look like you're going to cry".

4) wait for them to defend and loop again to how they're overreacting, and they know it to be true. Keep the loop going for as long as necessary

5) Break the loop with an exit "you look unstable, this conversation is over" and walk away

With debating, make sure they argue the evidence and not the credibility of the source. I.e. you.

Ensure you are never personally put on the defensive but defend your opinions with facts and finish each statement with a question attacking their opinion. The lack of the question will prompt them to attack your last point.

Metalaggeddon · 2015-12-23T12:19:05+00:00

A lot of my personal growth comes through imagining arguments in my head. Like I would state an opinion, and imagine someone I know's counterpoint, and go from there. However I don't really feel I have the proper information to do this correctly. Which leads to me either A.) Providing opinions, I can't always back up properly. or B.) Not stating my Contrarian opinion, which in some situations has it's own tactical applications.

Lots of men do this, women too though to a lesser degree (generally). You're right in presuming that you don't have the proper information to do this correctly. Aside from truth tables to check validity, there's little you can do unless you're a skilled objective thinker. Most people require external input to critique their own perspectives effectively.

Regardless reading through here I have found a lot of terms, that seem to aide in argument. However I feel I am missing context on what school of thought these come from. I do want to learn more, and have a bigger picture of the subject.

Start with any book on first order logic. There are so many I can't list or recommend one specifically. Check it's contents and it will probably follow the basic format of explaining, validity, cogency, soundness, premises conclusions, rationale vs reason, then move on to modus ponens, modus tollens, syllogisms, etc, and afterwards it may hit truth tables, fallacies, equivocation, equivalence, and identicals. If you're lucky it'll also gave a small outline on 1st and 2nd order thought.

Terms like strawman, ad hominem, platitudes, which all seem to describe certain arguments, or points in an argument, and dismissing them without any real counter points.

Actually these fallacies are rational mistakes, caused frequently by most people. They can be anything from affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, to intentional mistakes and straw man or appeals to (x), popularity, inappropriate authority, slippery slope, etc. These fallacies are usually based in either faulty logic (following truth through the argument) or in faulty causal relations, (such as presuming that more people makes something more correct)

This seems to make sense, and imply that these are logical fallacies already mapped out, and furthermore that since these are so canon, or established most people won't take the time to explain them in context, and either assume the other person knows them, or assumes the won the argument because the other person obviously does not understand.

There are many logical and rational fallacies mapped out. Knowing them is a great way to immediately frustrate yourself in casual conversation, though they will help you strengthen your own arguments.

Regardless of the social dynamics. I am seeking a broader understanding of these types of things, and was hoping someone can point me in the wrong direction.

Pick up some books, join a philosophy forum. Practice critical thinking often. Don't argue a point unless you can argue it's opposition nearly as well. Don't expect rational logical discourse go change beliefs.

Let me know If I need to edit this. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

TheGoldenJ00 · 2015-12-23T19:07:30+00:00

Check out the fundamentals of aristotelian logic.

Aristotle broke down deductive logic/reasoning as we know it, which makes a path to break down a person's argument.

One of the best ways to help some one change their mind is to point out how their thinking is flawed.

There is also a book called "the verbal art of self defense" which will help you tell people how they are wrong without blatantly hurting fee-fees.

Title	How to Argue?
Author	Redjatis
Upvotes	7
Comments	6
Date	December 23, 2015 7:11 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/3xxr00/how_to_argue/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/how-to-argue.158241 https://theredarchive.com/post/158241

Comments