Can you win an argument by being long-winded and redundant?

Can you win an argument by being long winded and/or redundant?

  • Yes.
  • No.
0 voters

Personally I do not think that you can.
But I still see people trying to all the time, not just at ILP either.
Can anyone explain to me how I might benefit from being more long winded and/or redundant?
God wouldn’t have made those things if they weren’t of value.
Right?

I voted “no”, because in actuality, nobody can ever “win” an argument unless there is an agreed upon route to success.

Given that an argument must consist at least of two parties.

If one is long-winded and redundant, the other party will just raise the white flag out of irritation. So the one who uses long-winded and redundant argument wins by default.

I agree with Iose, I have a dear friend that wins every time using that method and the more he drinks, the longer and more painful it gets, so he wins by default in order to change the subject within our group. :laughing:

It sounds like Kris and Iose, you two need to pick your battles better… :stuck_out_tongue:

I am very disappointed with the spread here.

Ahahaha… I did it once though.

I recall debating with an irritating atheist. So I gave him his medicine. I said “like you do not know hermeneutics which according to Kung is tihs and that… and you want me to reduce your argument into a symbollic logic… you look like a fallacy you know…”

Works wonder. Just hate it when it is done to me though. Haha.

Me too.

Technically, you can’t call the loser until they quit. Aren’t we winning in Iraq for that very reason?

As well, consider Hillary Clinton’s case.

Wow flawed logic ftw…

“winning” and “losing” are both subjective–your conclusions are your own.

Not with me you can’t - I let others go on and on, and then I say my concise reply which cancels out all they have said, but are there ever really any winners, or only an agreement to disagree?

I vote yes, because I have watched many attorneys use this method over and over… and it works. Its called bore the opposition first into daydreaming, then subliminal influence while daydreaming, then complete loss of memory as to what is even being discussed at the time, and finally into a boredom based bloody subliminal submission. Sad but true- the long winded repetition is proven to work in court cases all the time. Often, the more the repetition, the more the whole audience even forgets the opposition’s stance on the subject in the first place, yet they have the long winded stance firmly planted in their mind- or what is left of their mind at that point. :astonished:

I’m not really sure. I guess it depends on the kind of argument.