/lit/ - Literature

premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.
11. If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.
12. If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable in your proposition.
13. To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him or her an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.
15. If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true poposition, as thoug you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he or she suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject a true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your own for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what the opponent accepted. For this, an extreme degree of impudence is required.
16. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.
17. If your opponent presses you with a counter proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.
18. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.
19. Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his or her argument, and you have nothing much to say, try to make the argument less specific.
20. If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion. Rather draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

love this man

21. When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth.
22. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.
23. Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his or her statements. By contractiong your opponent you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the orginal statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits.
24. This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition and by false inference and distortion of his or her ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears the opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.
25. If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiciton is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.
26. A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against him or herself.
27. Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. Not only will this make the opponent angry, it may be presumed that you put your finger on the weak side of his or her case, and that the opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.
28. This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.
29. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

Damn that's based.

31. If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
32. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
33. You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.
34. When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.
35. This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponenent will drop it like a hot potato.
36. You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If the opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as ife he or she has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him or her some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.
37. Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way which bad advocates lose a good case. If no accurate proof occurs to the opponent or the bystanders, you have won the day.
38. A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.

Schopenhauer was literally an r/intj type mofhertucker ni wonder he couldn't get laid

>>16382277
>5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Is this why all the faggots here use those "Well, but according to your logic, sweaty..." statements?

>>16382277
>>16382282
>>16382293
>>16382302
More like sophisthauer

>>16382313
This has been a tactic literally since Socrates. he used it all the time
Why haven't you read the greeks anon?

>>16382277
Fuck this guy

>>16382277
>>16382282
>>16382293
>>16382302
>tfw naturally a good arguer and orator and already intuitively practice these on a regular level

That's kind of mean to the other person

>>16382277
>>16382282
>>16382293
>>16382302
I've done all of these at least once during my 14 years of posting on this shithole site. Also, Schopenhauer would have definitely been a shitposter if he was around today.

>>16382337
No shit, he was a depressed incel neet

>>16382282
>14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.
tfw this has worked many times, but I prefer it to be a temporary tactic so the conversation can be resolved in a real believed truth, see Plato's Gorgias.

>>16382325
because I'm retarded. my dad gave me complete works of plato after seeing that my library sucks, probably.

39. N

>>16382327
Well, if you're into necrophilia...

>>16382346
faggots are calling it "sealioning" these days and some have called me out on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

>>16382351
Based. Always works. But as of late I've been saying mandingo

You can tell that he imagined using all those tricks against Hegel in his wet dreams only to wake up to the crude reality...

>>16382277
Wow so this is where Trump learned his awesome rhetorical skills

>>16382329
I'm pretty sure that a good arguer should not do a rule 38

>>16382351
https://youtu.be/_czzkqPjvS4
Classic

>>16382375
>t. Has never been in a formal debate.
They do it all the time

>>16382302
>A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand
kek

>>16382373
I now want to hear the orange retard trying to pronounce "Schopenhauer"

It is a testament to Socrates genius, focusing on this sphere alone(for it would be a much longer post to explain his grand historic greatness), that he uses all of these tactics and the spirit of victory-aiming in an argument, but always to the very end of the highest truth to which he believes. No sophist is he!

>>16382395
>orange retard
>has had the world wrapped around his finger for half a decade
>changed the tide of culture single handedly

>>16382369
More like he observed plebeian Hegelians using these underhanded tactics and decided to expose them in his list.

>>16382304
why are people so dumb? At least learn about the man before your parrot the morons here. He fucked his fair share of pussy. Definitely more than you. He was banging a 19 year old and thought he got her pregnant, offered to abort it. He was based.

>>16382399
>bunch of dumb mutts vote for him
>OMG I RULE THE WORLD
Shut up fat.

>>16382362
What a gay name.

>>16382304
Schopenhauer was famous for his lecherous habits and even had a daughter who died in infancy. He wasn't some kind of proto-incel.

>>16382410
yea, it was invented by progressive leftists, what can you expect.

>>16382412
Yeah but he failed to secure the love of the one woman he really cared about.

>>16382412
b-but he said mean things about wamen

>>16382420
>moving the goal posts on what incel means

>>16382375
>>16382333
He isn't saying you should use these tricks. He was trying to uncover sophistry in all its forms and write them down with their counter tactics in a Machiavellian realist form, but he never published or finished the book. Halfway through it literally made him depressed. From one his essays:
> such a detailed and minute consideration of the crooked ways and tricks that are used by common human nature to cover up its shortcomings is no longer suited to my temperament and so I lay it aside.

>>16382858
How can one man be so based?

>>16382416
Of course, they must have dried up gay retard debates.

>>16382277
>>16382282
>>16382293
>>16382302
Based Rabbi Schopenhauer

>>16382302
>A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
based and redpilled

>>16382277
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw-ZPRnN3Ak

>>16384672
>implying either bugman have educated themselves with classical refinement

>>16384672
what ethnicity was he?

>>16384679
Algerian jew