How to DESTROY Anyone in an Argument

Summary

This satirical video script explores Schopenhauer's essay on the art of argumentation, highlighting manipulative tactics used to win debates rather than seeking truth. It humorously outlines strategies like exaggeration, splitting arguments, controlling metaphors, and appeals to common sense, all aimed at making opponents appear foolish and oneself appear clever, even when wrong. The script serves as both a guide for those looking to engage in deceptive debate and a cautionary tale for those wishing to discern genuine discourse from sophistry.

Takeaways

• 😀 Schopenhauer's essay satirizes the art of argumentation, highlighting the use of manipulative tactics over genuine pursuit of truth.
• 🧐 The script emphasizes that many debates are not about finding the truth but about winning through various rhetorical strategies.
• 🤔 It suggests using exaggeration to distort the opponent's position into a straw man, making it easier to refute.
• 📉 The 'Mot and Bailey' technique is described, where a more extreme position is used to sneak in a less controversial one by comparison.
• 💬 The power of endless questions is highlighted, not for clarity but to confuse and undermine the opponent's argument.
• 🌐 Controlling the metaphors used in a debate can influence perceptions and make an argument seem more reasonable or extreme.
• 🤨 The script points out that appealing to 'common sense' can be a deceptive way to present oversimplified arguments as self-evident.
• 🙅‍♂️ Interrupting the opponent can prevent them from presenting a strong case and make them appear less confident or coherent.
• 🔥 Making the opponent angry can derail their argument and shift the focus from the content to their emotional state.
• 🗣️ 'Word salad' is recommended as a tactic to appear intelligent without actually presenting a substantive argument.
• 🎩 Schopenhauer's work serves as a guide to recognizing and countering deceptive argumentation tactics in discourse.

Q & A

What are the key things philosophers have historically cared about?

Philosophers have historically cared about truth, logic, and open inquiry.

Why do some people desire to dominate opponents in a debate?

Some people want to dominate in debates to make their opponents look foolish and themselves appear clever, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.

What does the transcript suggest about the nature of truth in debates?

The transcript suggests that truth can be dry and involve complex reasoning, whereas the excitement often lies in the performance of winning an argument.

What is Schopenhauer's contribution to the art of argumentation as mentioned in the transcript?

Schopenhauer is mentioned as providing a guide on how to use underhanded and logically spurious techniques to gain the upper hand in any argument, even when lacking a solid stance.

What is the 'Mot and Bailey' argument technique described in the transcript?

The 'Mot and Bailey' technique involves presenting a reasonable position (Bailey) while secretly aiming for a more extreme or controversial one (Mot), and then switching between them to confuse the opponent.

How can the use of exaggeration be employed in an argument to misrepresent an opponent's position?

Exaggeration can be used by taking an opponent's position to an extreme, outlandish interpretation, creating a straw man that is easier to attack and refute.

What is the purpose of employing an endless assault of questions in an argument?

The purpose is to baffle and confuse the opponent, keeping them off balance and preventing them from forming a coherent argument or thought.

How can controlling the metaphors in a debate influence the outcome?

Controlling metaphors can frame the discussion in a way that appeals to the audience's emotions and biases, potentially swaying their perception in favor of the arguer's position.

What is the 'strength of common sense' tactic and how can it be used in an argument?

The 'strength of common sense' tactic involves stating a position as if it's obvious or self-evident, making it seem simpler than the opponent's more complex argument, and relying on the audience's preference for simplicity.

Why is interrupting an opponent during their argument an effective strategy?

Interrupting prevents the opponent from presenting a complete, coherent argument, potentially making them appear confused or less confident, and allowing the interrupter to appear more in control of the discussion.

How can making an opponent angry be beneficial in an argument?

Making an opponent angry can cause them to lose focus, become incoherent, or act irrationally, which can make their arguments less persuasive and the provoker appear more reasonable by comparison.

What is the 'word salad' technique and why might someone use it in an argument?

The 'word salad' technique involves using complex language and jargon to create the appearance of intelligence and authority without necessarily providing clear or accurate information, potentially impressing an uninformed audience.

What are some miscellaneous pointers for being a successful dishonest arguer according to the transcript?

Miscellaneous pointers include using personal insults to derail discussions, refusing to concede on points, conflating unrelated terms, and changing the subject when close to defeat.

What is the ultimate goal of the deceptive arguer as outlined in the transcript?

The ultimate goal of the deceptive arguer is to win the debate at any cost, focusing on the optics of their performance rather than the truth or validity of their arguments.

What lesson can be learned from Schopenhauer's essay on the art of being right?

The lesson is to recognize and be wary of deceptive argumentative tactics, and to value good faith debates aimed at discovering the truth rather than merely appearing right.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Mastering the Art of Debate with Schopenhauer

This paragraph discusses the desire of philosophers to dominate in debates and the techniques outlined by Schopenhauer in his essay on argumentation. It emphasizes the appeal of appearing clever and defeating opponents, even when they are right. The paragraph introduces the idea of using exaggeration to distort the opponent's position and create a straw man, as well as the concept of a 'Mot and Bailey' argument to smuggle in extreme positions under the guise of more moderate ones. The goal is to win the debate by any means necessary, even if it involves logically fallacious tactics.

05:01

🤔 The Power of Metaphors and Questions in Argumentation

This paragraph delves into the use of metaphors and questions as strategic tools in debates. It highlights how framing arguments with positive connotations and controlling the narrative through metaphors can sway opinions. The paragraph also discusses the tactic of bombarding opponents with irrelevant or loaded questions to confuse and undermine them. The aim is to keep the opponent off balance and exploit any inconsistencies in their responses to appear superior in the debate.

10:03

🧠 Manipulating Common Sense and Debate Dynamics

The third paragraph examines the role of common sense in debates and how it can be manipulated to an arguer's advantage. It suggests presenting a seemingly simple argument to gain the common sense advantage over more complex ones. The paragraph also covers the tactic of interrupting opponents to prevent them from presenting a coherent argument, thereby creating the impression of victory. Additionally, it touches on making opponents angry to throw them off their game and the use of word salads to appear intellectually superior without actual substance.

15:04

📚 The Art of Appearing Intellectual Without Substance

This paragraph focuses on the tactic of 'word salad,' where the use of complex language and technical jargon creates an illusion of intellectualism without the need for actual expertise. It draws a parallel to the con man Frank Abel Jr., who convincingly assumed various professional identities through demeanor and appearance. The paragraph warns of the risk of being perceived as an authority without the underlying knowledge, suggesting that such tactics can be effective in winning arguments despite a lack of research or understanding.

20:04

🎯 Schopenhauer's Satire on Deceptive Argumentation Tactics

The fifth paragraph presents Schopenhauer's satirical view on argumentation, offering a series of deceptive tactics such as personal insults, misrepresentation, and changing the subject to win debates. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing these tricks to maintain the integrity of discourse and to distinguish between genuine seekers of truth and those merely interested in appearing right. The paragraph serves as a cautionary guide to navigate the manipulative tactics often found in debates and discussions.

25:05

📘 The Importance of Critical Analysis Over Deception

In the final paragraph, the focus shifts from deceptive argumentation to the value of critical analysis. It suggests that understanding and employing tactics to counter sophistical tricks is essential in the pursuit of truth. The paragraph encourages viewing Schopenhauer's work as a tool for inoculation against deceptive argumentation and emphasizes the importance of separating education from indoctrination. It concludes by advocating for good faith debates and the pursuit of truth over the mere desire to win an argument.

Keywords

💡Debate

Debate refers to a formal discussion on a particular topic, typically involving opposing arguments. In the video's context, it's about the art of winning arguments through various tactics, even if one's position is not logically sound. The script discusses how to dominate opponents in a debate, suggesting that the traditional focus on truth and logic can be overshadowed by persuasive techniques.

💡Sophistry

Sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving others. The video highlights sophistry as a means of argumentative performance, where the script mentions 'Brave Warriors of sophistry' and how they use deceptive techniques to win debates, rather than adhering to the principles of truth and logic.

💡Exaggeration

Exaggeration is the act of representing something as larger or more significant than it actually is. The script describes the use of exaggeration in debates to distort the opponent's position, making it seem more extreme or ridiculous than it is, as in the example of misrepresenting 'freedom of speech' to mean a total lack of restrictions.

💡Straw Man

A Straw Man argument involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. The video script uses the term to illustrate a tactic where one can create an implausible version of the opponent's argument, making it easier to refute and thus appearing to have won the debate.

💡Mot and Bailey

The Mot and Bailey technique refers to a two-part argument strategy where 'Mot' is the more moderate position and 'Bailey' is the more extreme one. The script explains how this tactic can be used to smuggle in a controversial position under the guise of a more acceptable one, confusing the audience and making the extreme position seem like a logical conclusion.

💡Socratic Questioning

Socratic Questioning is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue that aims to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. However, the video script discusses a perversion of this method, using endless and confusing questions not to clarify but to baffle and undermine the opponent's argument.

💡Common Sense

Common Sense is often used to refer to sound and prudent judgment based on a simple understanding of a situation or facts. The video script points out the misuse of 'Common Sense' in debates, where a seemingly simple but incorrect argument is presented, forcing the opponent to refute it with complex explanations, thus appearing less convincing.

💡Interruption

Interruption is the act of breaking into someone's speech or discourse. In the context of the video, it's used as a tactic to prevent an opponent from presenting a coherent argument, creating the impression of victory by constantly interrupting and not allowing the opponent to finish their point.

💡Word Salad

Word Salad is the use of complex or technical language in a way that is nonsensical or difficult to understand, often to give the impression of intelligence or authority. The script describes how dressing up arguments with jargon and complex terms can make one appear knowledgeable without actually providing clear or logical arguments.

💡Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a Latin term for a type of personal attack, usually against an individual's character rather than their argument. The video script suggests using personal insults as a tactic to divert the discussion and force the opponent to defend their character, thus derailing the debate from the original issue.

💡Miscellaneous Pointers

The term 'Miscellaneous Pointers' in the script refers to a collection of various tactics and tricks used in arguments that don't fit into the other categories. These include tactics like conflating terms, changing the subject when losing, and never conceding except on minor points, all aimed at maintaining the appearance of being right in a debate.

Highlights

Philosophers have historically focused on truth, logic, and open inquiry but often failed to address the desire for debate dominance.

Schopenhauer's essay outlines underhanded techniques for gaining an argumentative upper hand, even without a valid stance.

Exaggeration can be used to misrepresent an opponent's position by interpreting it in the most extreme way possible.

The 'Mot and Bailey' technique involves presenting a rational position while covertly advocating a more extreme one.

Controlling the metaphors used in a debate can influence perceptions and judgments by framing the discussion favorably.

Using common sense arguments can make an opponent's informed stance seem complicated and less appealing.

Interrupting an opponent can prevent them from presenting a coherent argument and make their points seem less valid.

Making an opponent angry can derail their argument and make them appear less reasonable, securing a perceived victory.

Using a word salad of complex terms and jargon can create an illusion of intellectual authority without substance.

Personal insults can be a distraction tactic to divert from the actual argument and force a reaction.

Refusing to concede on any point and launching immediate counterattacks can maintain a facade of argumentative strength.

Schopenhauer's work serves as both a guide for rhetorical tricks and a defense against deceptive argumentative tactics.

The essay highlights the importance of separating education from indoctrination in the digital age of information overload.

Schopenhauer criticizes the prioritization of debate victory over the pursuit of truth and logical consistency.

The video encourages critical analysis of both others' views and one's own as a vital skill for personal growth.

The transcript satirizes the art of argumentation, revealing the tactics used by those more interested in winning than truth.

The video concludes with a call for good faith debates and respect for the pursuit of truth over mere victory.

Transcripts

throughout history most philosophers

have cared about a few key things truth

logic and open inquiry but they have

failed to provide what we really want to

know how do we dominate our opponents in

a debate making them look like a fool

and us really really clever for that

matter how do we do this even if they

are right and we are wrong after all

truth can be dry boring and involve

tedious complex reasoning steps whereas

destroying someone in an argument is

deeply exciting and will make everyone

look at us and go what a smart and

handsome man I wish my boyfriend were

like him before giving us a kiss on the

lips and telling us how irresistibly

attractive we are because of our

humongous swollen brains well luckily

schopenhauer has got your back in his

brilliantly sarcastic essay on the art

of being right he outlines exactly how

you can use a myriad of underhanded and

logically spurious techniques in order

to gain the upper hand in any argument

even if you don't have a leg to stand on

and as you watch this video you'll

notice you don't have to go very far to

see these models in action littered

across the internet are these Brave

Warriors of sophistry simply choose your

preferred Guru and let them guide you

into the wonderful world of

argumentative performance using shopen

how's handbook as your definitive text

get ready to learn how politicians can

convince you of something that you know

is false why logic barely matters in

most debates and so much more so throw

out your old dusty critical thinking

books and let's learn how to destroy

people with facts and logic without

using either one so what you're saying

is the trouble with lots of debates is

there's often more than one reasonable

perspective on an issue and this is a

massive hurdle people start to think

that your opponent's position is

plausible or even just understandable

then there is every chance they will

start to listen to them and we can't

have that listening might lead to

comprehension which might lead to

persuasion at this point the debate is

lost and our ego is tossed in the bin

fortunately schopenhauer says that we

can nip this nent threat in the bud

through the careful use of exaggeration

every time your opponent puts forward a

position simply say so what you're

saying is and then fill in the blank

with the most outlandish interpretation

of their words you can possibly imagine

so if I were to argue that freedom of

speech is a good General principle in

any liberal Society you can respond by

saying oh so you think we should be able

to shout bomb in a crowded airport that

is ridiculous you can clearly see the

move being made here we have taken my

statement that freedom of speech should

be highly valued and reinterpreted Free

Speech to mean a total lack of

restrictions on any speech rather than

leaving room for a more moderate

position that would admit of certain

caveats there are a number of ways you

can achieve this exaggeration you can

pretend that in affirming a particular

case of something your opponent has

actually agreed to a much more General

principle so in the above example I

could put on my best foe outraged face

and say well I never this guy wants to

control what people can say and do well

actually their argument simply points

out that in the particular case of

yelling bomb at an airport we might want

to make an exception to the general rule

of not policing speech we can also

interpret every use of a word with some

inherent vagueness in the most bizarre

and ridiculous way possible so if they

say bad we will pretend they have said

equivalents to the Devil Himself and if

they say good we will interpret that as

completely Beyond reproach as if it is

the Wellspring of morality this ensures

that their true point will be completely

obscured with only an implausible straw

man left in its place and that sets us

up perfectly for our next move if you

want to help me make more videos like

this then please consider subscribing to

either my channel my email list or my

patreon the links are in the description

two what I'm saying is to continue our

misrepresentative Gambit we can bolster

our own arguments by essentially

splitting them in two we will have one

very careful circumspect rational and

almost truistic position and another one

which is much looser but can also do a

lot more for us whenever we're not being

actively criticized we can assert the

looser position and then Retreat back

into our stronger one if anyone raises

an objection if I wanted to argue for

the abolition of puppies I would start

by saying something really sensible like

certain types of large dog can be very

dangerous then when my opponent has

taken their eye off the ball I can start

talking about banning puppies more

openly but when they regain focus and

point out that my position is ridiculous

I can say get a load of this guy he

doesn't think that dogs can be dangerous

this is known as a Mot and Bailey

argument or a Mot and Bailey fantasy if

you're talking to someone who cares

about logical principles it is perfect

when you want to smuggle in a position

without anyone noticing the slight of

hand maneuver going on if you're really

good at this then you can convince

people of whatever you like framing the

entire discussion as if it follows from

an obvious truism eventually people may

become so confused that they'll start to

think your extreme suggestions are

simple entailments of your more minimal

position so someone will hear certain

types of dog are dangerous and

immediately think this means we have to

eliminate all puppies without stopping

to consider whether that actually

follows from their original statement

the ideas will become associatively

welded to one another this means we'll

be able to bypass The Logical reasonable

part of someone's mind and get great to

the good stuff the stuff that is more

willing to hang on our every word

unthinkingly if you use this strategy

and the previous one together

successfully it becomes basically

impossible to lose an argument as far as

your viewers or listeners or audiences

concerned you are a very reasonable

person holding a perfectly obvious

position whereas your opponent is making

some plainly ridiculous claim they

cannot possibly defend it's a way of

poisoning the well before you even

really get started anyone watching will

begin from the position that you are

probably right and then you just have to

Lampoon the straw version of your

opponent's argument that you've

constructed to hammer home the message

it basically does itself but of course

we're just getting started now we have

to move on to the business of active

argumentation and how to come out on top

even when you really shouldn't three the

endless assault of questions in another

one of my videos we went through the

careful way that Socratic questioning

can be used to clarify what someone says

in a discussion and how it can

facilitate good faith argumentation

where both you and your interlocutor can

come to a mutual understanding of one

another's points in order to learn

something new and hopefully get closer

to the truth but who cares about that

now we must forget Socrates and employ

questions in an entirely different way

one aims to baffle and confuse rather

than illuminate we must keep our

opponent constantly on their toes with

questions that are either irrelevant to

their overall point or simply lead them

in the direction we want them to go so

if you're presenting the pro puy league

and I am still on my puppy Annihilation

campaign I might send a merciless

barrage of questions your way they might

range from ones that imply something is

nebulously untoward about your character

why is it exactly that you have such a

perverse affection for Kines Mr Jones

two ones that are evidently loaded so

how do you account for the fact that

dogs have consistently been used as

weapons of war throughout history to

ones that are simply beside the point is

it not true Mr Jones that you were

recently seen in the company of not dogs

but cats our aim here is not to use

questions to understand but to undermine

even the most intelligent people can be

reduced to stuttering and silence if you

throw enough varied inquisitions at them

in quick succession you're essentially

forcing their minds to continuously jump

from issue to issue never letting them

rest long enough so that they can form a

coherent thought it goes without saying

that we should only pay attention to the

answers of these questions when it suits

us so if they give a perfectly sensible

response we should just ignore them

refusing to even acknowledge it but

obviously if they slip up giving an

answer that seems unsatisfactory or is

confusing or contradict something they

said earlier in the debate even slightly

then we can pounce upon that we

triumphantly cry upon closer inspection

your whole position falls apart for the

rest of the encounter we should not let

them forget this coming back to it

whenever we get the sense a bit too

comfortable best of all would be if we

get them to make a series of flawed or

confusing or contradictory answers in

quick succession as this is sure to

provoke a laugh from anyone watching

this is all to give the impression that

your opponent does not even know what

they are talking about despite the fact

they might be very knowledgeable some of

the best types of questions to provoke

this sort of reply are ones that contain

within them a presupposition that the

debator does not agree with so I could

ask but given that puppies are evil why

shouldn't we get rid of them then not

only does the speaker have to answer the

question they are also bound to want to

dispel this presupposition or else

they'll be seen as implicitly endorsing

it and of course my opponents would not

want to concede the idea that puppies

are evil however to anyone watching it

just looks like someone's giving a long

convoluted response to a downright

simple question this would leave the

impression that we are a superior

intellect easily able to trip our

opponents up with Elementary questions

about puppies of course this is even

easier if you prime your audience to

feel like you must be fundamentally in

the right and this is where shopen how's

next observation enters the arena four

control the metaphors a lot of us like

to go around pretending that we are very

rational but in recent years we've

started to discover just how many extra

logical factors influence our judgments

and decisions and just one of these is

the power that framing metaphors and

labels have on our thoughts for instance

if the losses in a situation are

emphasized more than the gains then it

makes people more risk averse even if

the actual facts have not changed at all

but this cognitive bias presents a

gleeful opportunity for the unscrupulous

debator who cares nothing for truth and

simply wants Victory the prospect of

controlling the frame of the discussion

this can be done in a number of ways

first we give our position a name that

is packed as full as possible with

positive connotations so we won't call

our worldview puppy nihilism but instead

something like maing protectionism and

this will stretch to the metaphors we

use we won't paint ourselves as joyously

arguing for the an ation of innocent

puppies but instead we'll emphasize all

of the protective elements of our

position we will Express real Sympathy

for the puppies we don't want to hurt

them we'll say we just recognize that

this is a sad necessity of protecting

people from harmful guard dogs we will

Proclaim that those who oppose us are

not doing so out of some affection for

puppies they just don't have the guts to

do what must be done we won't call them

puppy lovers but instead something more

nefarious like puppy Fanatics or the

puppy League of course the particular

context will dictate which metaphors it

Mak sense to use if we want to appeal to

those who consider themselves supremely

rational then we will emphasize the

hysterical nature of caring so deeply

about puppies we'll use terms like puppy

worshippers and pup sterio if we want to

make it seem like our opponents are out

of touch then we can talk about those

fortunate enough to have the time to

care about puppies if we want people to

view our opponents as just evil then we

can emphasize what we say are the

downsides of puppies and then say that

they act L support that then the puppy

supporter becomes a Ming Enthusiast or a

dog poo lover the possibility stretch as

far as your logical conscience is

willing to accommodate and this does not

just end at controlling the terms used

in a debate it can stretch to the way

that we talk about the power dynamics at

play in one situation we can argue that

we're only saying what everyone else is

thinking and it's only because the

powers that be prevented that people

aren't speaking out more against puppies

alternatively if we want to appeal to

people that consider themselves

intelligent and moderate then we can say

that really this is the position of the

thinking man we are the few who are

enlightened enough to stand up for

killing puppies when most are still

dreaming of unrealistic scenarios of

humans and puppies living in harmony but

you and I we've thought about it we know

the truth we could also associate the

puppies or their supporters with a group

of people maligned by our audience which

in different scenarios might be the rich

or the poor or certain foreign Nations

as I said the possibilities are endless

none of this directly argues for our

position or adds a single logical reason

to believe in it because it doesn't have

to it's playing on people's identities

very few people want to be seen as

hysterical or unthinking so the more we

keep implying that our opponents must be

like that the less people want to take

up the cause of the puppies we're then

controlling not just the debate but the

way the debate is perceived if we are

able to frame the whole issue in our

favor either by presenting ourselves as

the sensible voice of reason fending off

some Fringe lunatics or as a small

independent group of Brave truth tellers

revealing hidden secrets then a great

many people who don't know anything

about the questions involved will

probably accept this presentation and

think ah well the anti- MERS do seem to

be the rational ones here and they'll be

much more likely to unthinkingly Parrot

our position when done skillfully this

is a proper Master stroke for the

manipulative debator as it allows them

to pre-weight this discussion and any

further discussions in their favor which

is quickly becoming a consistent theme

of the video and in a similar vein we'll

now move on to a devious type of trap to

lay for our unsuspecting opponent one

that can actually turn their Superior

know against them five the strength of

Common Sense how many times have you

heard someone defend a position by

saying well it's just common sense isn't

it of course strictly speaking this

doesn't support anything Common Sense is

a pretty fallible way of establishing

whether something is correct if we had

clung desperately to our common sense

since 3000 BC then we would arguably

still believe that the sun god Rah

fought monsters over the course of the

night to ensure that he rose again the

next morning after all how else would

the sun keep coming back it's just

common sense this this is where

schopenhauer's next dastardly play comes

in he points out that one of the best

ways to make an informed opponent seem

foolish is to say something wrong but

that appears to be common sense and then

let them try and refute it probably

using some long explanation that draws

on their particular expertise you can

imagine this happening in a historical

debate about geocentrism the belief that

the Earth is the center of the universe

and everything else orbits it at least

in theory the geoc Centrist could say

look we seem to stay still don't we and

the sun seems to move no doubt a crowd

of non- astronomer 16th century

onlookers would be pretty satisfied with

this line of reasoning it appeals to

common sense of course the actual

historical Renaissance position of

geocentrism was much more sophisticated

than this I don't want to misrepresent

that after this kernus has to take the

stand and carefully explain that there

are actually subtle contradictions in

the best geocentric models of the solar

system and that if you move to a more

complex heliocentric model then this

clears some of them up then a century

later Kepler would have to interject and

say that our best heliocentric models

actually make slightly more accurate

predictions of planetary movements than

are best geocentric ones sure they are

technically you know correct but the

very length of their explanation would

probably cause many listeners to go look

how hard they have to work to deny the

basic facts of the matter the sun

revolves around the earth get over it

it's just common sense this reflects the

observations of Behavioral Economist

Daniel Carman that we often prefer a

simple explanation to one that is

complicated but ultimately closer to the

truth it is often a much better way of

managing our mental resources if reality

is too complex to understand at a glance

then unless the issue is of

life-changing import we may as well just

move on in ignorance but for the

dishonest debator this opens up a great

opportunity to get the upper hand by

making sure their position is not

necessarily correct but definitely seems

simpler than their opponents this will

allow that ever helpful Common Sense

advantage to kick in and you'll have an

inherent Head Start in any confrontation

with someone arguing something more

complicated and the great thing about

your opponent embarking on a lengthy

explanation of a complex point is that

you can do the following to great effect

six interrupt imagine the time giving an

in-depth presentation of quite a

delicate argument perhaps I am arguing

that despite girdle's second

incompleteness theorem there are still

multiple helpful uses for second order

logic this would take quite a long time

and require several reasoning steps that

some people might question especially if

they're not presented in a sufficiently

nuanced way so what would make turning

this difficult task into a near

impossible one well interrupting me

every few seconds would probably do the

trick then I would lose my place

multiple times and be much more likely

to put something clumsily allowing for

my points to become confused or garbled

then I will leave the impression on

anyone present that I'm not confident in

my argument or that I do not

sufficiently understand it it will seem

like you are showing me up as you

forensically analyze my argument in real

time as I'm giving it of course in

reality all you're doing is not letting

me get a word in edgeways but that's

besides the point as I said at the

beginning we are not concerned with good

faith truth logic or validity we are

concerned with winning dominating and

destructing and for all its

philosophical flaws this strategy can

leave the strong impression of Victory

this Interruption tactic is especially

important to do if your opponent looks

like they have an argument that will

actually end up refuting your position

then you are in a race to interrupt them

before they can reach their dreaded QED

you see this an awful lot in interview

programs in an effort to catch out their

subjects the interviewer will refuse to

let them finish their point and instead

insist on taking issue with every step

of the argument as it progresses I think

people are luckily starting to see

through this trick more often but it's

still incredibly common and if you plan

to be a disingenuous arguer it is an

invaluable tool in Your Arsenal and it

might also have the rather Nifty side

effect seven make your opponent angry

the trouble with calm people is that a

lot of the time they're pretty

reasonable they are often able to

formulate their arguments both

intelligently and convincingly and this

is really annoying if your overall goal

is just to trick people into agreeing

with you so if our opponent is on the

verge of making some sense we must nip

that in the Bud immediately by making

them as angry as humanly possible when

someone is angry it's much harder for

them to refute your arguments Point by

point they are much more likely to drift

off topic or become incoherent or just

make a fool of themselves at this point

you can pretty much ignore anything

they've said so far and simply point at

them and say goodness me how can I be

expected to debate with such a person

after the discussion people will be

talking about how calm and collected you

were in the face of this clearly

unhinged adversary despite the fact that

you set out to get under their skin in

the first place of course how you make

this person angry is contextual and also

entirely up to you you might launch a

series of unjustified ad homonym attacks

and hope that they take the bait maybe

your constant interruptions will be

sufficient to make them snap perhaps you

can just speak in a supremely derisive

tone of voice condescension dripping

from your every passing word until they

find your very presence insulting I'll

leave you to work out the details but

the main objective is to be a complete

windup Merchant once your opponent is

frothing at the mouth they'll be unable

to challenge your position meaning that

you win by default sure we've missed out

on the potential to have our views

challenged and made someone look like an

idiot for no reason but we won and

that's the important thing then again

what's the point in winning if we don't

get across the further idea that we are

beings of unparalleled intellect brain

box Titans straddling the channel

through which lesser mines paddle in

their silly little boats well luckily

our next point should clear this up

nicely eight toss a word salad now we

have come my most Amorous and treasured

squabbler to the juncture at which we

commence the audacious explorations of

the isle's most theside we must pluck

the loquacious fruits from the evergreen

tree at the midmost yard of the garden

of faux eloquence we shall conquer the

monosyllabic dispense with the

comprehensible and Retreat into the safe

Refuge of near unintelligibility or to

quote WC Fields if you can't Dazzle them

with Brilliance then baffle them with

but in this case we must

carefully construct our dress

it up in the finery of academic language

and Technical terminology so that to the

uninformed Observer it looks like a

Colossus of intellectual capability but

on closer inspection it's just a shop

mannequin in a cheap powdered wig this

is a way of achieving the Aesthetics and

authority of intellectualism without

having to do any of that messy thinking

or learning to the untrained ey we will

appear exactly like any other incredibly

clever person after all we've got the

lingo down we ourselves with authority

we speak with assured confidence at

first glance anyone would take us to be

an expert on whatever we are speculating

about according to his Memoir the

reformed con man Frank Abel Jr was able

to pass as a pilot a doctor and even an

FBI agent simply by means of his own

unflappability and by dressing the part

and these identities are all much easier

to disprove than a nebulous claim of

expertise or authority so we'll probably

have a much easier time than franked of

course there will always be some people

who see through the Skies but they will

be drowned out by the sheer number of

onlookers Star Struck by your extensive

vocabulary and nice tweed jacket someone

can even fall into this Trope without

realizing it one of the reasons I say

pretty much once every video that I am

not some Grand Authority in that you

should draw your own conclusions is that

the mixture of my Posh accent eccentric

demeanor and way of writing might trick

you into thinking that I am anything

more than just some guy with a few books

and I would be eager to disabuse you of

any such notion but if you do want to

put on the Thrills and Petty coats of

the intelligencia employing helpful

servings of word salad along the way

then it might just be your shortcuts to

winning an argument even if you haven't

done 5 minutes of research but now some

final decorations on the cake nine some

miscellaneous pointers some of shopen

how's tips and tricks can't be neatly

grouped together like I have done for

previous sections so here's a selection

of some of his Greatest uncategorized

Hits consider using personal insults if

you're backed into a corner this will

force your opponents to try to defend

their character which will then derail

the discussion if you refuse someone's

particular argument then claim that the

conclusion of that argument is therefore

false disallowing them to have any

further argument in its favor if their

position has never been tested state

that it's good in theory but just would

not work in practice if pressed avoid

elaborating why if you have nothing to

say to directly challenge your opponent

simply point to some general but

irrelevant concern like how everyone is

wrong sometimes or that nothing is

certain conflate terms that have no

business being conflated make your

opponents choose between two extremes

obscuring any reasonable Middle Ground

begin an argument with everyone knows

that so that people understand where

they should stand on the issue if you're

close to being defeated just suddenly

change the subject above all if you want

to be a successful dishonest arguer you

must learn how to never concede except

on the most minor points anytime you are

forced to give something up simply

pretend that you haven't later in the

argument and ignore what you said before

each time it appears you've lost some

dialectical territory launch an

immediate Counterattack to reclaim it or

just assume it again when your

opponent's not looking refuse to engage

with the substance of your

interlocutor's arguments and employ

every tactic of exaggeration obfuscation

and Distortion in your power to make

them seem ridiculous nothing is off the

table no principle should hold you back

from an ad homonym attack or a blatant

misrepresentation cast logic out the

window it is no longer your master your

only Guiding Light is the Optics of what

you're doing how it will be seen by

others whether they'll think you have

won the debate don't see conversation as

a potential search for truth but rather

a competitive sparring match where the

object is to humiliate rather than

construct or communicate and of course

don't admit to anyone that this is what

you're doing but say that we don't want

to do any of this say we are exactly the

kind of idealistic truth-loving

philosophers that a deceptive debator

would treat with derision and Scorn what

can we take away from shopen how's

biting satire on how discourse tends to

function 10 the lessons of Deceit right

I'm going to remove my slightly sardonic

intensely sarcastic hat and let's assume

that what you and I are interested in is

actually the truth we ideally want good

faith debates to proceed between two

respectful and open-minded participants

so that the truth can be converged upon

provided we have all of the relevant

information well on the one hand if you

don't mind playing their game it offers

a series of rhetorical tricks you could

use if you're ever confronted with an

opponent who is clearly interested in

stooping to that level as schopenhauer

says I think seriously in the

argumentative arena in practice it is

not enough to merely be right you must

also be able to swat away all of the

limic persuasive but logically

fallacious objections you will encounter

but even if you're not planning to dive

into the wonderful and terrifying world

of public debate schopenhauer's work is

fantastic for inoculating us against the

kind of argumentative moves people make

that are merely sophistic tricks that

distract us from the real issue at hand

it lets you know whether you're watching

someone who genuinely wants to

understand a topic or someone who just

wants to appear right some Anarchist

philosophers interpret mavell the prince

as a warning about all the ways leaders

can seize and maintain power that are

deadly efficient but morally horren and

I think we can view shopen how's

sarcastic essay in a similar way it is

showing us the tricks of the trade used

by bad faith actors who care less about

truth or logic and more about simply

getting their idea shoved into your

skull and who are willing to use any

means necessary to do so and in our

internet age where anyone can post any

opinion on any topic the skill of

separating education from indoctrination

is vital for staying sane to paraphrase

the opening pages of schopenhauer's

essay the issue of OB truth is

inexpedient if your only aim is to

change someone's mind or to win at any

cost and you would be surprised at just

how often people trade in honesty logic

and consistency for a slim shot at glory

of course a much more important skill

than knowing how to deceive someone into

thinking that you're correct is how to

actually critically analyze both someone

else's views and your own and click here

to watch my video on that very topic and

stick around for more on thinking to

improve your life