How to win an argument without having solid reasoning and proof A...
E-go@EgoDriv
17 views
Sep 01, 2024
~3 min read
Advertisement
1
How to win an argument without having solid reasoning and proof
A thread that should be illegal:
A thread that should be illegal:
2
Disclaimer:
The following is not to be used to convince your interlocutor but to convince the audience and show them the person in front is wrong.
This technique is often used in political debates but seems to go unnoticed.
The following is not to be used to convince your interlocutor but to convince the audience and show them the person in front is wrong.
This technique is often used in political debates but seems to go unnoticed.
3
The reason I'm sharing this with you is to allow you to spot this rhetoric tactic and not fall for it.
I am not inviting you to use such deceptive conversation techniques.
Let's start.
I am not inviting you to use such deceptive conversation techniques.
Let's start.
4
Stage 1: Triggering your interlocutor
If you're short on logical arguments, the safest way to still be right is by making the person in front of you sound wrong.
If you're short on logical arguments, the safest way to still be right is by making the person in front of you sound wrong.
5
In order to do that, you have to drag the conversation towards emotions and completely disregard any sort of logic.
A few ways to do this is by responding to logical arguments by suggesting that your interlocutor lacks empathy by being too rational (emotional appeal).
A few ways to do this is by responding to logical arguments by suggesting that your interlocutor lacks empathy by being too rational (emotional appeal).
6
Or even directly criticizing the person in front instead of discussing their ideas.
This is all in order to destabilize the discussion and disturb your interlocutor's thought process.
Once this is done and a climate of animosity is installed, you can start phase 2.
This is all in order to destabilize the discussion and disturb your interlocutor's thought process.
Once this is done and a climate of animosity is installed, you can start phase 2.
7
Stage 2: Forcing the monologue through question bombing
While the tone of the conversation is getting more and more aggressive and emotional, you start framing the conversation by bombing your interlocutor with questions.
While the tone of the conversation is getting more and more aggressive and emotional, you start framing the conversation by bombing your interlocutor with questions.
8
The goal here is not to get an answer from them but rather the opposite, what you are really doing is getting on their nerves.
This should be done in such a way that you ask a question every time they start answering the previous one.
Very annoying but very effective.
This should be done in such a way that you ask a question every time they start answering the previous one.
Very annoying but very effective.
9
You want to make them ask you to stop interrupting.
Once you get that, time to let them speak.
Once you get that, time to let them speak.
10
Stage 3: Letting your interlocutor speak
Here you want them to talk as long as possible, you have already been preparing them for this moment by disturbing them all along.
Here you want them to talk as long as possible, you have already been preparing them for this moment by disturbing them all along.
11
They should feel relief as you completely shut up and start looking at them in the eye with interest and insistence. Intense eye contact to convey that you're not only listening but doing so willingly and with good faith.
But your disturbing act is not done yet.
But your disturbing act is not done yet.
12
As they start speaking, you should have a very expressive face and react with negative facial expressions to the point the person is making.
Not with anger but rather with disdain, a smirk, a smile or even a laugh now and then.
Not with anger but rather with disdain, a smirk, a smile or even a laugh now and then.
13
The idea is to make them angrier and angrier as they try to convey their message while destabilizing their rationale.
14
At the same time, you're also signaling to the audience that the points made by your interlocutor are not worthy of listening and that you have the answer to all of them.
15
Stage 4: Destroy the monologue
Yes, good old ad hominem.
You're not going to address any of the points made.
Instead, you're going to attack the flaws of their rationale and the person.
Yes, good old ad hominem.
You're not going to address any of the points made.
Instead, you're going to attack the flaws of their rationale and the person.
16
Explain that they've monopolized the conversation and have been pretty aggressive all along.
Say that their ideas and speech are delusional and lack realism.
You don't need to explain, you just state.
The point here is to diminish the value of what was said.
Say that their ideas and speech are delusional and lack realism.
You don't need to explain, you just state.
The point here is to diminish the value of what was said.
17
The point is not to be right or propose better ideas.
You simply describe their monologue as dictatorial and delusional.
Make them look like they're evil and disconnected from reality.
You simply describe their monologue as dictatorial and delusional.
Make them look like they're evil and disconnected from reality.
18
Understand that in politics and mass influence and manipulation, the most important thing is not to be right but to make others wrong.
Again, the reason I'm sharing this with you is to warn you from poorly intentioned individuals who want to manipulate public opinion.
Again, the reason I'm sharing this with you is to warn you from poorly intentioned individuals who want to manipulate public opinion.
19
If you can spot someone doing this, don't vote for them and don't trust them. They have nothing to propose but they're good at show and rethoric.
Also understand this, the ones who express themselves the best are not necessarily the smartest.
Also understand this, the ones who express themselves the best are not necessarily the smartest.
20
