Win your argument!!!

seattlegal said:
A woman with PMS can make Schopenhauer look like a wimp. ;)
Click to expand...
Hence the reason the moon helps provide advance warning of when the woman will be on the 'loin' cloth?

41. Suggest that God is still on your side.

ATTENTION: When you see a post from me, give it another 20 minutes for me to finish editing it.
 
flowperson said:
...I have observed that intention resides in the loin area in most men until about the age of forty, whereupon it begins to magically ascend to a place above the shoulders where it should have resided all along. ...
Click to expand...
Technically, the baby back ribs are part of the loin, from where the rib was taken to make the woman.

42. On a religion website, assert nomenclature over the scripture to make a point... don't ask why, everyone does it.
 
43. Forget to answer questions that could incriminate, or where I basically have no clue and it would be too honest to admit it.
 
Bumping for any newbies that feel the need to gird their loins :p

s.
 
Ah, Snoops. I'm starting to get some ideas about who your doppelganger(s) is(was/were). I remember some spectacular vocabulary was employed in those long, boring verbal battles. I think all 38 rules came into play.
 
Dream said:
Ah, Snoops. I'm starting to get some ideas about who your doppelganger(s) is(was/were). I remember some spectacular vocabulary was employed in those long, boring verbal battles. I think all 38 rules came into play.
Click to expand...

Please warm to your theory...:)

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Hi,

Heck, I thought bible thumping was bible-fist contact, not bible-head contact. Would that not result in loss of consciousness rather than conversion?

(and fish are more versatile at meal times!!)

s.
Click to expand...
Now there are many who would challenge there is no difference:eek:

But back to the OP. I've never got all this stuff, I suppose I use much of it...

But never actually understood the tactics... like why or how would someone use a straw man?
 
cyberpi said:
43. Forget to answer questions that could incriminate, or where I basically have no clue and it would be too honest to admit it.
Click to expand...

Don't even have to forget to answer.. If you're strong enough you just stare in the persons eyes and stone wall them. Their question isn't important and neither are they.... Tell them what's what.
 
Rule 44: Be the last to comment before an administrator or intermediary closes the conversation.
 
Rule:
17: Take out those who stand against you by any means possible, if you know what you support is flawed promote it but instead of defending it against assaults try other methods.

17a Blackmail them.
17b Death threats are good also.
17c Discredit your opponent....
17d Smeer capaign your opponent
17e When cornered stone wall and do not reply to questions and pick apart the weak point of what they support.
17f bullbait
 
Ooh here's another one! Get your opponent all revved up about a hot button issue but without directly referencing it. Then, its like you've pulled your plane up into an overhead loop & the other pilot doesn't know where you are -- right behind them!!!!! I wish I could fly planes. You say something like "Let's get back onto the subject at hand. Please stop derailing the topic!"
 
Dream said:
Ah, Snoops. I'm starting to get some ideas about who your doppelganger(s) is(was/were). I remember some spectacular vocabulary was employed in those long, boring verbal battles. I think all 38 rules came into play.
Click to expand...

Snoopy said:
Please warm to your theory...:)

s.
Click to expand...

Dream said:
Oh, so as not to derail I posted it in the other thread.
Click to expand...
This thread reminds me of the good old days with Snoopy's doppelganger in the old flame pit practicing "liberation by mutual exorcism." {Dang! I need to find another flame pit!} :)
 
Snoopy said:
...more intellectual weaponry? Try these 38 for size ..........
Click to expand...
Nice of you! But I would say a list of logical fallacies in the whole does not seem relevant to most posts on this forum because, again, they seem to involve no real attempt to make an argument. More often it's some kind of noninformational exchange.

A compelling argument is one that anticipates attempt to refute it. IMHO, very little on this forum qualifies as argument in that regard. At the risk of overgeneralizing I'd say that most posts here are statements of opinion or belief and do not have the structure of argument at all.

In communication theory, there is a basic principle that interactions are purposeful, and that the purpose is apparent from the content of the communication. The fact that most posts here involve no real attempt to make an argument must make some sense. I suspect it makes very good sense for someone who is short on time or not sufficiently interested in the subject matter to actually put something coherent together.

Another possibility: Lack of argument is also potentially self-protective. If you feel like you can't win an argument, just don't venture one and then you can't be blown out of the water.
 
A compelling argument is one that anticipates attempt to refute it. IMHO, very little on this forum qualifies as argument in that regard.
Click to expand...
Namaaste NN

No one is indicating that the any argument presented is actually correct...the thoughts are just indicating how to win one despite the facts, reality, or correctness.
 
Hi Wil,
wil said:
..the thoughts are just indicating how to win one despite the facts, reality, or correctness.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I see that. My thought was that to really win the argument (as opposed to bamboozle or mislead or snow), the argument itself has to be valid. But that's just me. :p
 
17th Angel said:
Rule:
17: Take out those who stand against you by any means possible, if you know what you support is flawed promote it but instead of defending it against assaults try other methods.

17a Blackmail them.
17b Death threats are good also.
17c Discredit your opponent....
17d Smeer capaign your opponent
17e When cornered stone wall and do not reply to questions and pick apart the weak point of what they support.
17f bullbait
Click to expand...
Add "sandbagging" - as with lots of scriptural quotes where the cited passages presumably speak for themselves, so that the opposing view then seems to becomes a matter of challenging "The Word."
 
interesting read, this thread.
I suppose it depends on what you are arguing about.
If it is vital that people listen, as it has to do with tangible facts, then one merely has to present the facts and the evidence.
If it has to do with intangibles like religion and philosophy, then how can one win?
By force of presentation?
By sheer charisma?
These ideas are all speculation and conjecture so without lots of hard evidence then what really constitutes a win?
The greatest applause?
In that case....who cares.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Add "sandbagging" - as with lots of scriptural quotes where the cited passages presumably speak for themselves, so that the opposing view then seems to becomes a matter of challenging "The Word."
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm guilty of that. Just because I bring scripture into the argument doesn't mean that the scripture isn't open for discussion.
Would you classify citing scripture as an "appeal to authority" tactic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top