Newspaper from Japan
Published in United States of America - Social interactions and entertainment - 11 Jan 2017 10:55 - 5
Before I start, this one is going to be lengthy..so if you're easily scared by evil walls of text, feel free to carry on.
Long awaited update was implemented this morning and the server downtime encouraged me to visit that other universe (which should not be mentioned).
Anyway..I took a peek at some old articles and found one that MUST be recycled here. I'm going to c/p most of the content, but the examples will be adapted for eRevollution use..as some of them wouldn't translate properly here.
The original article was written by (hats off to..) Eikyuu.
***
It is a subject that goes back thousands of years of course, so I think it would be appropriate to introduce some clics, rather than trying to rediscover the wheel. This has the obvious advantage of appealing to the widest audience, who do not need to take my word for what is considered appropriate argumentation.
A particularly well known treatise on this subject is Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right containing 38 ways to win a debate. It is freely (and legally) available online here. Many of the ways are actually fallacious arguments which the author analyses to help spot and refute when our opponent uses them. The book often ironically presents these underhand techniques as real tools for debate.
I encourage you to read the whole thing, for it is not very long, but for immediate use I have chosen some of the chapters, focusing on spurious arguments, and summarize them below (with original stratagem numbers in parentheses). The examples I provide are not meant to express my judgement on any particular real situations with the help of the book. Rather, I meant to use the eRevollution context we share, to help you better understand the book.
Needless to say, you will find this extremely useful in the articles, comments and debates that will follow. See if you can spot and point them out to your cheating adversary.
Spoiler: "B" stands for the "Bad guy" here.
1. Generalizations and Out of Context Reasoning (Stratagems I, II, III and XI.)
While it might not be possible to attack a specific claim, it can always be generalized to include so many cases or possibilities that the whole proposal begins to sound ridiculous. Instead of attacking the specific one, attack the absurd general version. Another version would be to change the meaning of what someone is saying or talk about something superficially similar.
Example 1:
A: This training war is costing us too much.
B: You're wrong, training wars give gold through medals.
A: I said this not all wars.
Example 2:
A: The Georgians are wrecking the economy.
B: Wow, you racist, you discriminate against Georgian people!
A: No, I meant those players who happen to be Georgian, not the Georgian nation.
2. Metaphors and Catchy Names (Stratagems XII, XXXII.)
When the matter under discussion has no concrete name it is advantageous to be the first to name it. The word chosen might evoke particular negative emotions or be remotely used to some known hated politician or doctrine (usually with -ism).
Example 1:
A: How about we use government funds to help all citizens with donations?
B: It sounds like communism, and you know how that ended.
Misc. Examples: "Whoever didn't vote for us is a traitor", "You value Japanese tradition, so you probably support fascism like they did in WW2.", "Their newspaper released another batch of propaganda."
3. Claim Victory, Even Despite Defeat (Stratagems XIV, XX.)
Usually there will be questions in a debate, used to clarify, advance and to make sure you are on the same page. But instead of waiting for an answer the adversary might answer seemingly rhetorical questions and pretend that was our answer. Worse yet, they can proclaim they just won trying to take advantage of more polite or shy people.
Example 1:
B: If I get the raw materials for free, and sell food for 0.399, would you buy it? Of course you would, so I make profit, and you have to accept the whole setup.
A: Actually, no, because you forgot to include the salary and tax, so let's go back and check more carefully.
Example 2:
B: So how are you so sure you are right? You are in fact wrong! So stop arguing because whatever you say is not going to change it.
A: You only said I was wrong, you are yet to demonstrate it.
4. Attack Someone's Background (Stratagem XVI.)
Instead of treating the argument itself, it might be possible to attack the person's background, using their friends, statements or actions, even if this is not related directly to the matter at hand. It is known as ad hominem not to be confused with ad personam, which aims to make angry or humiliate. It has also be noted, that someone's reputation might be of importance, e.g. when choosing a Minister of Finance, we obviously care if they have stolen in the past. In general, however, the specific argument has to be distinguished from who and how is describing it.
Example 1:
A: ... and that is why Turkey would be a good ally.
B: Wait a minute, didn't you fight against Turkey in the last war?
A: Yes, but that was a training war and both sides fought together on both sides, as planned.
Example 2:
A: The current situation in Germany is terrible!
B: You are German yourself! Why don't you give up the citizenship and go elsewhere?
A: Precisely because I care and want to improve it here.
5. Changing the Subject and Disruption (Stratagem XVIII, XXIX.)
A very common diversion tactic, usually employed with personal arguments, to argue against someone on completely different grounds. That can then seemingly taken as proof that the original argument was won. Very often this turns into a blame game ("You did that too!"). When cornered, the adversary might simply interrupt the whole debate.
Example 1:
A: You dissolved his companies and stole the money while sitting for him!
B: Life's hard, everybody steals.
Example 2:
A: We agreed to share the cabinet positions.
B: But your last article on Japanese alphabets had really poor fonts chosen...
A: That has nothing to do with the ministry of finance.
B: Bah, you clearly disqualify yourself as a candidate, I refuse to discuss this any further!
6. The Democratic Argument (Stratagem XXVIII.)
Known as argumentum ad auditores this relies on using the audience to decide in a debate which involves experts. Usually the subject requires some specialist knowledge or skill, although the result affects everybody. By making the audience laugh or appealing to common sense one can appear to win by having the lar support, while the other side, who tries to show the true but counter-intuitive facts, remains misunderstood. However, this is not to say that nothing can be decided by lar vote – the congress seats being the obvious counterexample. Some things do rely on majority's opinion or intuition, as the next stratagem shows.
Example 1:
A: If we want to steadily earn money we have to carefully keep track of how we use them.
B: What a boring task, this is supposed to be a fun game, right? Who's with me?
Crowd: WE WANT FUN!
Example 2:
A: It would help the economy if we raised taxes, and the salaries at the same time, so that and everybody benefits.
B: Workers do you like higher taxes?
Employees: Of course not!
B: Managers do you want to pay the workers more?
Employers: Never!
7. Appeal to (Unknown) Authority (Stratagems XXX, XXXI.)
Many rules are here to make things orderly and lives easier, but they cannot apply in all possible cases. Sometimes the law fails, people are framed and criminals set free. The scientific and economic theories change with time. Insisting that a particular case must be treated according to tradition is an argument from authority, which could simply be game rules but also entrenched prejudice. Often those trying to avoid moral responsibility appeal to it.
Example 1:
A: The citizens do not approve this law.
B: Officially the other party has the majority in congress.
A: You will hurt lots of people with this.
B: Sorry, my hands are tied, we have to abide by the game mechanics.
Example 2:
A: You know the gold was not transferred, due to the bug, why can't you give me back the money in USD?
B: But the support says it's not an bug, so who am I to judge? Must be something wrong with your PC.
Example 3:
A: We should act carefully.
B: Don't be such a sissy and act like a real man.
8. Personal and Emotional Attacks (Stratagems VIII, XXVII, XXXVIII.)
Also known as ad personam, Schopenhauer entitled the 38th chapter The Ultimate Stratagem, and it comes as no surprise that this is more or less the lar trolling, and is sadly 90% of conversations. There are enough dirty tricks that can be used here for a whole series of articles, and many of them require a trip into psychology, not just rhetorics. The basic tactics includes anything that makes people angry, uncomfortable or ashamed. Even though it is so common, there is not much to be said about its essence – it is both brutally effective, as it acts on the "unconscious" (hence ultimate) and brutally transparent for it carries no real contents.
Examples:
- So young, so naive.
- Go back to school, kid.
- Your arguments are as foul as your face.
- Your mother was not very conscientious whilst choosing whom to acquaintance herself with intimately.
- Boo hoo, stop crying that I stole from you.
- Don't tell me what to do you hypocrite piece of manure and just shut up!
etc. etc......
Schopenhauer treats it as a method of sidetracking the discussion or agitating someone so that they make a mistake, he is not interested in flaming for the sake of flaming. This argument is ultimate also in the sense that it is the last resort when real ones fail. In case of trolls the emotional part (the technical term is drama) is the goal in itself, and often the discussion is doomed from the start. Accordingly, his book does not go as low as to discuss opponents who contradict themselves, use racial or homophobic slurs or mangle grammar on purpose. An interesting specimen is the preemptive tactic of declaring any discussion as drama or trolling to prevent being proven wrong – this falls into point 5. To end this article, having a real debate at heart, I leave you with Schopenhauer's own advice:
A cool demeanor may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, "That has no bearing on the point in dispute," and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults.
***
Long awaited update was implemented this morning and the server downtime encouraged me to visit that other universe (which should not be mentioned).
Anyway..I took a peek at some old articles and found one that MUST be recycled here. I'm going to c/p most of the content, but the examples will be adapted for eRevollution use..as some of them wouldn't translate properly here.
The original article was written by (hats off to..) Eikyuu.
It is a subject that goes back thousands of years of course, so I think it would be appropriate to introduce some clics, rather than trying to rediscover the wheel. This has the obvious advantage of appealing to the widest audience, who do not need to take my word for what is considered appropriate argumentation.
A particularly well known treatise on this subject is Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right containing 38 ways to win a debate. It is freely (and legally) available online here. Many of the ways are actually fallacious arguments which the author analyses to help spot and refute when our opponent uses them. The book often ironically presents these underhand techniques as real tools for debate.
I encourage you to read the whole thing, for it is not very long, but for immediate use I have chosen some of the chapters, focusing on spurious arguments, and summarize them below (with original stratagem numbers in parentheses). The examples I provide are not meant to express my judgement on any particular real situations with the help of the book. Rather, I meant to use the eRevollution context we share, to help you better understand the book.
Needless to say, you will find this extremely useful in the articles, comments and debates that will follow. See if you can spot and point them out to your cheating adversary.
Spoiler: "B" stands for the "Bad guy" here.
1. Generalizations and Out of Context Reasoning (Stratagems I, II, III and XI.)
While it might not be possible to attack a specific claim, it can always be generalized to include so many cases or possibilities that the whole proposal begins to sound ridiculous. Instead of attacking the specific one, attack the absurd general version. Another version would be to change the meaning of what someone is saying or talk about something superficially similar.
Example 1:
A: This training war is costing us too much.
B: You're wrong, training wars give gold through medals.
A: I said this not all wars.
Example 2:
A: The Georgians are wrecking the economy.
B: Wow, you racist, you discriminate against Georgian people!
A: No, I meant those players who happen to be Georgian, not the Georgian nation.
2. Metaphors and Catchy Names (Stratagems XII, XXXII.)
When the matter under discussion has no concrete name it is advantageous to be the first to name it. The word chosen might evoke particular negative emotions or be remotely used to some known hated politician or doctrine (usually with -ism).
Example 1:
A: How about we use government funds to help all citizens with donations?
B: It sounds like communism, and you know how that ended.
Misc. Examples: "Whoever didn't vote for us is a traitor", "You value Japanese tradition, so you probably support fascism like they did in WW2.", "Their newspaper released another batch of propaganda."
3. Claim Victory, Even Despite Defeat (Stratagems XIV, XX.)
Usually there will be questions in a debate, used to clarify, advance and to make sure you are on the same page. But instead of waiting for an answer the adversary might answer seemingly rhetorical questions and pretend that was our answer. Worse yet, they can proclaim they just won trying to take advantage of more polite or shy people.
Example 1:
B: If I get the raw materials for free, and sell food for 0.399, would you buy it? Of course you would, so I make profit, and you have to accept the whole setup.
A: Actually, no, because you forgot to include the salary and tax, so let's go back and check more carefully.
Example 2:
B: So how are you so sure you are right? You are in fact wrong! So stop arguing because whatever you say is not going to change it.
A: You only said I was wrong, you are yet to demonstrate it.
4. Attack Someone's Background (Stratagem XVI.)
Instead of treating the argument itself, it might be possible to attack the person's background, using their friends, statements or actions, even if this is not related directly to the matter at hand. It is known as ad hominem not to be confused with ad personam, which aims to make angry or humiliate. It has also be noted, that someone's reputation might be of importance, e.g. when choosing a Minister of Finance, we obviously care if they have stolen in the past. In general, however, the specific argument has to be distinguished from who and how is describing it.
Example 1:
A: ... and that is why Turkey would be a good ally.
B: Wait a minute, didn't you fight against Turkey in the last war?
A: Yes, but that was a training war and both sides fought together on both sides, as planned.
Example 2:
A: The current situation in Germany is terrible!
B: You are German yourself! Why don't you give up the citizenship and go elsewhere?
A: Precisely because I care and want to improve it here.
5. Changing the Subject and Disruption (Stratagem XVIII, XXIX.)
A very common diversion tactic, usually employed with personal arguments, to argue against someone on completely different grounds. That can then seemingly taken as proof that the original argument was won. Very often this turns into a blame game ("You did that too!"). When cornered, the adversary might simply interrupt the whole debate.
Example 1:
A: You dissolved his companies and stole the money while sitting for him!
B: Life's hard, everybody steals.
Example 2:
A: We agreed to share the cabinet positions.
B: But your last article on Japanese alphabets had really poor fonts chosen...
A: That has nothing to do with the ministry of finance.
B: Bah, you clearly disqualify yourself as a candidate, I refuse to discuss this any further!
6. The Democratic Argument (Stratagem XXVIII.)
Known as argumentum ad auditores this relies on using the audience to decide in a debate which involves experts. Usually the subject requires some specialist knowledge or skill, although the result affects everybody. By making the audience laugh or appealing to common sense one can appear to win by having the lar support, while the other side, who tries to show the true but counter-intuitive facts, remains misunderstood. However, this is not to say that nothing can be decided by lar vote – the congress seats being the obvious counterexample. Some things do rely on majority's opinion or intuition, as the next stratagem shows.
Example 1:
A: If we want to steadily earn money we have to carefully keep track of how we use them.
B: What a boring task, this is supposed to be a fun game, right? Who's with me?
Crowd: WE WANT FUN!
Example 2:
A: It would help the economy if we raised taxes, and the salaries at the same time, so that and everybody benefits.
B: Workers do you like higher taxes?
Employees: Of course not!
B: Managers do you want to pay the workers more?
Employers: Never!
7. Appeal to (Unknown) Authority (Stratagems XXX, XXXI.)
Many rules are here to make things orderly and lives easier, but they cannot apply in all possible cases. Sometimes the law fails, people are framed and criminals set free. The scientific and economic theories change with time. Insisting that a particular case must be treated according to tradition is an argument from authority, which could simply be game rules but also entrenched prejudice. Often those trying to avoid moral responsibility appeal to it.
Example 1:
A: The citizens do not approve this law.
B: Officially the other party has the majority in congress.
A: You will hurt lots of people with this.
B: Sorry, my hands are tied, we have to abide by the game mechanics.
Example 2:
A: You know the gold was not transferred, due to the bug, why can't you give me back the money in USD?
B: But the support says it's not an bug, so who am I to judge? Must be something wrong with your PC.
Example 3:
A: We should act carefully.
B: Don't be such a sissy and act like a real man.
8. Personal and Emotional Attacks (Stratagems VIII, XXVII, XXXVIII.)
Also known as ad personam, Schopenhauer entitled the 38th chapter The Ultimate Stratagem, and it comes as no surprise that this is more or less the lar trolling, and is sadly 90% of conversations. There are enough dirty tricks that can be used here for a whole series of articles, and many of them require a trip into psychology, not just rhetorics. The basic tactics includes anything that makes people angry, uncomfortable or ashamed. Even though it is so common, there is not much to be said about its essence – it is both brutally effective, as it acts on the "unconscious" (hence ultimate) and brutally transparent for it carries no real contents.
Examples:
- So young, so naive.
- Go back to school, kid.
- Your arguments are as foul as your face.
- Your mother was not very conscientious whilst choosing whom to acquaintance herself with intimately.
- Boo hoo, stop crying that I stole from you.
- Don't tell me what to do you hypocrite piece of manure and just shut up!
etc. etc......
Schopenhauer treats it as a method of sidetracking the discussion or agitating someone so that they make a mistake, he is not interested in flaming for the sake of flaming. This argument is ultimate also in the sense that it is the last resort when real ones fail. In case of trolls the emotional part (the technical term is drama) is the goal in itself, and often the discussion is doomed from the start. Accordingly, his book does not go as low as to discuss opponents who contradict themselves, use racial or homophobic slurs or mangle grammar on purpose. An interesting specimen is the preemptive tactic of declaring any discussion as drama or trolling to prevent being proven wrong – this falls into point 5. To end this article, having a real debate at heart, I leave you with Schopenhauer's own advice:
A cool demeanor may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, "That has no bearing on the point in dispute," and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults.
Support
PeakyThe RedGiovanno69Comments (5)
Excellent as always
Really interesting!
o7
A: You dissolved his companies and stole the money while sitting for him!
...and here I thought threatening to quit the game was a surefire way to win an argument here. Interesting read.