How to win an argument, any argument.

First of all, provide no examples for the points you make.

If someone asks for an example, reply to him that only an idiot would require an example for something that is so obvious.

If someone questions the premises of your arguments, find subtle ways to insult the questioning, and attack the points he makes in terms of your argument. Act as though your argument has already been proven when you do this.

If you find yourself monologuing, be sure to “poison the well.” Discount your opposition before they even reply. Say something like, “Any opposition to this view is merely a reinforcement of my claim.”

Mix this in with random quotes from other philosophers- often out of context- as your opposition will not realize they are out of context, but will merely question his knowledge by wondering why he doesn’t understand the context.

Never address your opposition as a human. Always discount him by calling him some repetitive name. Accuse him of “schoolyard” behavior whenever he employs rhetorical hyperbole, but indulge in it as often as you like. Never admit to indulging in rhetorical hyperbole, but always call out your opposition for doing so. Remind him that nobody else agrees with him, and that he is retarded for being unable to convey his observations.

Study up on the methods of message board trolling, there are a few other hints to be found by observing the best trollers.

After discounting your opposition many times and refusing to address his points, begin to ignore him and only throw him the occasional bone, so that he thinks he is losing. Your argument could be completely devastated, and he might feel as though he should have won, but he will never truly believe it if you concede absolutely nothing.

And remember…never give examples.

Use a lot of random short aphorisms…

…to make your points.

And, ask a lot of questions in a row?

But can I do this without giving an example?

That’s about it. By relentlessly employing these tactics, any mountain of sociological or psychological gobblety-gook can sound like gold. Be sure to use these tactics against people who take philosophy seriously, as this will infuriate them, and will waste their time.

This method will not work for arguments that are obviously false, but it is a brilliant tactic to use when observing human activity and attempting to explain the origin of such behavior for whatever end you see fit. It’s complete freedom from scholarly obligation, and it works against anyone who opposes you.

The only way for your opposition to beat you is to disregard your argument and ignore you, but he may have trouble doing this since pride is difficult to overcome when it comes to important beliefs.

And with that, I’m free.

Be quiet.

Your silly indignance only serves to make one wonder whether Satyr hacked your account and placed that proverb in your signature. :laughing:

I put it there :stuck_out_tongue:

It can be taken either way.

…just don’t argue with people, and they get maddened by your silence: till everyone sees them for the cunt that they really are…

Why waste time and energy on a ‘thing’ that is non-beneficial?

Ade, are you a girl?

(Just curious)

No, just a man who studied the traditional methods of philosophy, not this grandstanding popularity fest that goes on here. I’m appalled.

Query: How many times should I contradict myself and insist that the other people are too simple to understand my first assertion? :laughing:

The truely moral person would not want to win an argument, for it entails inflicting pain on the loser. You should be satisfied that Satyr has thoroughly beaten you into the ground. Would you dare want to be a greater immoralist than he? I don’t think you would.

How dare an arrogant self-righteous moralist want to try to use this one technology of reasoned arguments to beat the other into submission to their own position! It would be better for the world to go into mindless, selfless buddhism, than that one moralist ever win an argument.

The second a moralist defeats an immoralist in an argument, morality falls out of the world. Morality is not for the rational. Morality is a primitive phenomenon. Is it any wonder why reasoned utopias always sound so cold, boring, and harsh? They are immoral to the core. Reason spits on morality.

By reading Aristotle one can see that practical morality is firmly grounded in reason. One need only the premise, “Man desires to be happy.” I think this is pretty easy to verify. The rest falls into place.

The religious and otherwise theological remarks on morality are not justified by reason. However, the existence and practice of practical morality is superior to the sort of world that Satyr thinks best. It would produce more happy people, and would make it easier to achieve goals and desires than in a world where one is constantly at odds with others.

In the world of practical morality, superiority is not “the man who appears to be practicing practical morality but gets away with anything he wants,” it is the practice of practical morality with the mindset that a man is not an island. This is far more practical than thinking of oneself as some video game hero who must destroy all of his opposition. I don’t think some people realize how fictitious some of Satyr’s propositions sound because they get too caught up in his style and their desire for his words to be true.

His argument praises the last man standing after some huge, “Every man for himself” brawl that involves various aspects of superiority and inferiority in physical traits, intelligence, and the like. He views everyone else in relation to this unattainable ideal. This is anything but reasonable.

I was not “pounded into the ground” by someone because we weren’t even playing the same game. While I tried to find real answers, he decided to play with poetics and fanciful worlds that do not exist. His speculation on “what’s really going on in someone’s mind when they do X,” is anything but grounded in reason. He is projecting his own mind, which may or may not be “normal,” and assuming that his inner workings are the same as everyone else’s. This leap backwards into sociology is anything but scientific.

It’s easy to stand behind your giant and taunt that he “kicked my ass,” but you are only agreeing with him because that’s how you want the world to be. You don’t WANT to have moral obligations, and you don’t WANT to feel guilty when you harm another person. You find these problems to be too inconvenient to deal with, so you take the route of the rhetorician and try to do away with your obligations using “reason.” Or better yet, you let someone else do it for you, and then stand behind the big toe of your non-existent giant and mock the real human who stands in opposition to you.

Also, the argument that “contending against incorrect ideas” shatters morality is anything but reasonable. It would be WRONG for a moral person to allow someone to continue his life with incorrect ideas without trying to help him. Haven’t you ever read any Plato?

Morality is the only way for the rational. Without it, a man cannot live long enough to become rational. Once he becomes moral and rational, he realizes that the only way for others to continue onward is to become moral and rational.

A moral and rational world gives a safe-haven to humans. In this place, they can begin to construct any other number of ideas. It is by living a moral life that we come to ideas regarding God, the cosmos, and all sciences. If the sciences turn against the morality that allowed humans the time to DISCOVER the workings of science, man will fall into a dark age. Morality is not something that can be discarded every time we find some new idea about the purpose of human existence.

Because the other “sciences which are grounded in reason” are dependent on morality, then it makes no sense to call morality “primitive.” See how far you get without it.

Also, since it is obvious that the existence of other sciences is dependent on a moral population, then it would make sense that any scientific “findings” that propose morality to be primitive or outdated are wrong.

Hmm…roll a 20-sided die and use whatever number it lands on.

Oh you really think they would work against a really good philosopher?

I challenge you to challenge me, but you MUST define your terms and must answer my questions, if you do not, it is a capitulation.

Yes, Dungeon Massa.

Ah, Traditional philosophy.

What a puritan. :sunglasses:

I for one am glad that you are appalled.

Yes, and if he continues to contend your arguments after you have repeated yourself the number of times equal to the roll, your opponent will take a loss of Hit Points equal to a 1d6 roll plus 1/3 of his level. If he is an Epic Character of 21st level or above, then the damage is multiplied by 1.6 repeating. However, if he is of the alignment of Lawful Good or Chaotic Good and has a weapon with a “versus Evil” enchantment of +3 or higher, then the entire effect is tripled and turned back on you.

This is all assuming, of course, that the initial argument is not covered with a protection versus alignment-good spell of eighth level or higher, in which case the entire argument implodes and creates a small vortex, dealing 2d20 damage to anyone within 15 meters at intervals of seven seconds. A fortitude save of 43 or higher will prevent this damage.

Should any participants emerge from the chaos, a Philosopher’s Helmet will be rewarded unto him, which boosts AC by 5 (natural modifier) and gives the power of True Seeing along with Detect Alignment. The Helmet comes with 3 charges, and the use of either spell costs one charge. The Helmet recharges to 3 charges after 24 hours. Unlike most charge items, however, the helmet will not disappear if all charges are used. The 24 hour charge period may be waived if the character finds an anvil and has a “Use Magic Device” skill of 16 or higher. A fee of 25 gold will be assessed for each charge restored in this manner. In the case that the holder has no gold, he may take a loss of 15 experience points to restore 1 charge.

If a character accidentally loses a level due to this expenditure of experience points, he will immediately be turned into a cow and lose all experience points, class bonuses, and skill points.

One word: reactionary.

Sau, I like how you follow me around and throw little “academia-esque” insults at me, like I’m some idiotic brute. I don’t even know what that insult is supposed to mean, and I’m sure many others don’t, either.

Are you suggesting that I “respond” to people in a “reactionary” manner? I suppose you’d like to suggest a better way?

Actually, what you’re describing reflects a person operating out of self-interest, deciding not to pursue an argument because of his own reluctance to experience the discomfort he anticipates feeling if he inflicts psychic pain by ‘winning’ an argument. That’s not morality in the Buddhist sense, which is about cultivating one’s awareness to better understand the nature of one’s own ignorance…and therefore to better perceive it in others. Because that ignorance is at the core of human anguish, it isn’t necessarily an immoral choice to do or say what’s necessary to illuminate this for another individual. It could be immoral not to. But the key is the initial development of insight and wisdom oneself, so that the choice to pursue the point is made out of compassion rather than self-interest.

Yes, that’s true. And pragmatic. Had a Buddhist (or anyone else) developed adequately that mindless selflessness, they’d understand the immorality (e.g., futility) of pursuing an argument simply to force another into submission.

Oh, I think the case for developing morality through rationality can be made. Morality isn’t just defined as making judgments, but is also a matter of behavior. There’s no reason to believe that whatever you or I say we think is ‘moral’ means that we’ll actually act in a manner consistent with that opinion if and when confronted with a dilemma. What increases the likelihood of consistency is a rational process of character development that’s achieved by engaging in the sort of reflection that increases self-awareness. And testing oneself, and gaining insight into one’s nature and one’s perspective of historical experience. That’s the necessary work of developing a personal narrative which leads to the formation of a particular moral character over any other.

Edited.

He means you suffer from a bad case of ressentiment. Satyr ignores you because he isn’t a reactionary and doesn’t suffer from ressentiment. He’s obviously more in control of himself when dealing with others who transgress him.

I go about the rest of my day just fine.

If someone (Satyr) doesn’t care about the problems I raise with his argumentative style (which should be obvious to anyone), then why do you all listen to him? If he is disinterested with contentions, then I think you can see his worth as a philosopher.

And yes, I do want to rally people to realize the BS of arguing in such a way so that conditions improve around here, and people stop floating their half-baked ideas at one another. Or, if the ideas are poor, that the person at least recognizes this and makes an effort to improve.

A person can develop an amazing writing style through imitation and observation, but this does not mean he will know how to argue properly.

Just look at what Satyr says to any point of contention. It goes something like this:

“You idiot! Don’t you SEE the world around you? Of course you knows it works the way I say it does. YOU don’t want to admit it. You want to be protected by your false gods and hypocritical ethics because it makes your existence more palatable!”

That is a very close example to what he would say in regards to any point of contention. As you can see, the statement is completely devoid of fact. What happens is that people get distracted by his sideshow and take him to be a valid debater.

I’m surprised he hasn’t been kicked out of here by now. I guess the powers that be are fascinated by panderers and court jesters.

Of course, I should try to keep from getting upset, even if it’s for only five minutes a day. There are a lot of people who live vicariously through the internet, and will stay “in character” no matter how many times a reasonable person tries to point out their mistakes. I suppose this is the case here. It would be rather intoxicating for an otherwise ineffectual individual to be hailed as godlike, even in a virtual setting. I enjoy knowing that the real world awaits me every time I leave an argument with him, frustrated and hopeless. I see the world around me as an obvious affirmation for the ideas I uphold. I walk outside and I act as I normally do, and things work. I realize the idiocy of such “arguments in a box” that look great on paper, but have no application in life.

People do not “subconsciously subvert their true desires in order to live in communion with one another.” The “true desires” that Satyr projects onto the whole of man are the true desires of ONE MAN: himself. He assumes that such urges are normal behavior, and since he resents this society that prevents him from fulfilling his urges to the maximum, he assumes that all others live in the same malcontentedness. Or, at best, he would argue that the people who don’t hold any malice toward society were “conditioned” to think that way, thus their input is invalidated.

I love how his judgment of humans is OBVIOUSLY free from any influence. He is the only mind that exists as an island. Everyone else is a socially engineered, instinct-compromising, non-thinking moron. And that’s the way he likes to see himself.

I think it is obvious that nobody could extrapolate such views from mere perception. Thus, any “philosophy” that grows from such nonsense must be confused.

Well, I see the beast has made no contentions to anything I have said. Dare I assume he is unable to reply? Nay, he must be trying to downplay this as “something that is not worth his time.”

However, the reader should be reminded that the above post accurately describes the methods he employs. If he feels that this point ought not to stand, then a contention should be raised.

The “downplaying” of a truth in no way invalidates it. Until a reply is made, I consider this a sufficient deconstruction of his methods. I hope that all future philosophical remarks from this “board member” are looked upon with strict scrutiny. If you catch him making ad hominem remarks or speaking in poetics during a debate, tune it out and wait until he gives a real answer. He will find that once his literary cleverness is wiped away and disregarded that he is no more perceptive or keen than an average person.

Through the use of his non-tactics, he raises himself up to a higher echelon of philosophy. It is through his “never answer any question” or “turn the question back upon the inquisitor” tactics that he appears omniscient. All of these are tactics that should be abhorred by serious philosophers. His “tier system” of human quality is dependent on these deceptions, and he wants to be at the top of this invisible mountain. Such a brilliant writer would be snubbed to realize that his eyes are no better than an ordinary man’s, or that his cynicism (that he claims is a sense of objectivity), may be just as much of a product of “social engineering” as the other “poor qualities” he accuses his opposition of holding.