 sj |
||
|
||
BS: How to argue
|
|
|
Subject: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,JTT Date: 27 Feb 04 - 04:43 PM I love arguing. But I love even more seeing how it's done. But I never learned rhetoric properly in school, due to the failings of the various systems through which I was educated. The only rhetorical device I know is "begging the question" - that is, setting up a false premise for an argument. Another one which I've found for myself, but for which I don't know a name, is the way that people who find themselves arguing on ground where their conscience is shaky will turn it into an argument about something else: "Men should mind children? Well, what kind of woman asks that question - only a woman who doesn't care about her kids!" (what *is* the name of this wonderful misdirection? Are there other similarly useful devices for cheating in arguments, and do they have names? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: flattop Date: 27 Feb 04 - 04:58 PM Why don't you just cheat like you did in school? http://www.uky.edu/ArtsSciences/Classics/rhetoric.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Peace Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:00 PM Cheating in an argument: see the gun thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:09 PM I didn't study rhetoric at all when I worked on my MA, I was strictly lit. But an aspect I see happen on scholarly lists where we argue regularly is when someone creates a "straw man," or introduces a flawed element into an argument in order to distract from the main argument or sets it up only to defeat this particular artifical example. It's difficult to describe, but I always recognize it when it happens in front of me. Here is a web site with examples. From that page:
1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: flattop Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:12 PM What if we are obnoxious pacifists, brucie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Dave the Gnome Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:16 PM I also love rhetoric, but interspersed with pure insult. "With all due respect, you, sir, are a wanker." Gets my vote... Cheers :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:20 PM Well, I ain't too sure 'bout the rules and regs of asguin' but I'll tell you one thing that folks do that really gripes me. It's the trestimonial. Anyone who starts a position with "Well, I've been a ______________ for 35 years... blah, blah, blah..." is trying to bully and is most likely playing with a weak hand... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:21 PM There is only one way to argue. Argue to win. Whatever it takes. "Nice guys finish last."...............Leo Durocher |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,JTT Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:24 PM Well, I've been a troller for six months... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:24 PM IS this the five minute arguement or the full half hour? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:28 PM Misdirection is always useful and there's no reason not to name it as such. "Well ther you go again, see what I mean? You always do that..." makes your opponent absoilutely wrong while completely avoiding the issue at hand, whatever it is. Wives are especially good at this one. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: freda underhill Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:46 PM we use the method of discussion, debate & thinking that we learnt in the home. Even if our ideas are very different from our parents ideas, our communication styles are modelled on those of our early family interactions. whether copying the original mode or reactind to it. Using aggression, ridicule as a form of argument is a tactic which leaves the person doing this looking like the emperor with his new (no) clothes. where any logic, or justification for the position held is overstated, the arguer's own personal communication flaws or personality weaknesses flame across the sky for everyone but him or her to see.. If an idea is persuasive, overstatement will only reduce its effectiveness. like putting too much salt on a good meal - it becomes distateful & inedible. less is more (but took me quite a few words to say that!) and an idea presented gently, kindly, can have considerable mileag freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Dave the Gnome Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:50 PM Guest Martin Gibson. I would agree. Only argue to win. But the interpretation of win can be a little vague. I will always win an argument with you because you are a tosser that can never win anything while I am perfect and everything I say is sublime. I now withdraw from this argument having won. Anything else you say will only prove my point... Easy! Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:50 PM Well, contrary to Martin G, I argue to get a closer approximation to the truth. I have occasionally even changed my mind. 'Winning' an argument in a forum like this is another one of those things that are like wetting your pants in a dark suit; 'you get a warm feeling for a while but nobody else knows it.' And of course, now we know that he will - consciously - lie or bully if he thinks it'll help 'win.' clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM The basic thing is whether you are just trying to win, or whether you are interested in getting at where the truth actually lies. In other words, is the person you are arguing with an enemy or a partner. It really helps when the people involved in an argument are agreed about what kind of argument they are involved in. That way things can stay agreeable enough. Just trying to win is perhaps a bit pointless, but it can be fun, so long as both parties are doing that. Arguments where both parties are interested in getting at the truth are more interesting, I feel. But the kind of arguments where some people are doing one thing and some are doing the other can be pretty frustrating, and are liable to end up bad-tempered. That is one problem with what happens here sometimes. In a trying-to-win argument you want the other person to avoid tackling your weak points, and you are likely to evade your antagonist's strong points. When the aim is getting-at-the-truth, it should be the other way round. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 27 Feb 04 - 05:55 PM How dainty, Freda. I don't really subscribe to that method. You would be surprised on how successful an aggressive negotiator can be. The object is to make a point so it sticks. We're not talking teflon here. The only thing that I subscribe to is to: a) pick your battles where you know you can win. b) be careful what you wish for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Peace Date: 27 Feb 04 - 06:17 PM flattop, don't load the gun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Feb 04 - 06:31 PM When it comes to topics that really matter, just having arguments-for the sake of-winning, rather than using the opportunity to try to thrash out the truth, seems to me a bit of a waste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 04 - 06:42 PM Yeah, McG, but those are the arguments that we seem to stick with 'cause on some issues there just isn't a *give-up* or *middle ground* scenerio. Like war. Or racism. Or hate, etc... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bill D Date: 27 Feb 04 - 06:57 PM JTT-the phrase you are looking for is Informal fallacies" any of the pages in that search will give you many examples of how arguing is done incorrectly. Your assignment is to go to one of the political/religious pages and find relevant examples....*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,JTT Date: 27 Feb 04 - 07:06 PM Oh, I like those, Bill, thanks! I'll study them at leisure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Feb 04 - 07:32 PM The straw man falls under there also, Bill. Argument doesn't automatically translate to "fight." It is a discussion. There doesn't need to be a winner. They can take place between friends and colleagues. The term implies that a topic will be dissected and understood more clearly (hopefully) at the end of the argument. You don't need to raise your voice or threaten anyone to win an argument. The attitude that one should enter it "only to win" means the conversation is not going to progress beyond egos and pre-conceived opinions. It will not be a true argument, instead it will be a battle of wills. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bill D Date: 27 Feb 04 - 07:39 PM I suppose I have posted this 5-6 times, but it is one of my favorites: old Peanuts cartoon: Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!" Linus just looks at her. Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!! Linus looks more intimidated... Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!" Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!" Sadly, I am reminded of my ex-wife many years ago, where most of our 'arguments' deteriorated into 'quarrels' about HOW to argue! *sigh* (and perhaps there IS simply a confusion for some folks about the terms "argument", "debate" and "quarrel") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 27 Feb 04 - 08:29 PM Martin: We've got one of those basic differences in world view, looks like. To me,argument is not the same as negotiation. and Every interaction between people is not a contest. So, "win at all costs" isn't much use to me, unless you're physically attacking me. You seem to live in a harsh, unhappy world. Meanwhile, Bill D seems to have answered the original question. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Feb 04 - 08:36 PM Chasing up the truth needn't involve compromise or searching for a middle ground on the main issue. But trying to identify where there are points of agreement about underlying issues, for example, is a worthwhile thing to do. When it comes to issues of war and peace, especially, there is almost always common ground about what is actually desired, with the differences being largely about methods of achieving these. And people tearing into each other about political differences generally might do well, it seems to me, to pay a bit more heed to the enormous amount of assumptions and beliefs they have in common. (Especially perhaps Americans.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Feb 04 - 09:03 PM Look! This isn't an argument - I paid for the Full Half Hour Argument! Just gainsaying everything I say is not a real argument! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Sam L Date: 27 Feb 04 - 09:03 PM I didn't study rhetoric, but a little logic, and the number one most common fallacy (just like a codebreaker knows that e is the most common letter in english) is a false dichotomy. So more often than not when one argues to win, both sides continue to lose in the same ways they are comfortable with. Because it's usually not really this or that, but any number of other possible things which both parties vainly ignore. You might be arguing to win, against your own interests. Every now and then a new idea, which is always really very old, struggles forward. The ancient Greek parallax experiment "proved" by a perfectly sound scientific method that the earth didn't move. But they just couldn't imagine they were that small in the universe. What was proved was that imagination beats the living crap out of every kind of sense or reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: freda underhill Date: 27 Feb 04 - 09:29 PM another part of argumentis the ability to listen.. without listening to whatever other poeple are talking about, whatever you say may be so irrelevant that it just doesn't address the issue in any way. furthermore, a person who doesn't listen, won't ever realise this.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: LadyJean Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:12 AM Speaking as the great granddaughter, granddaughter (Twice!) daughter, and sister of trial lawyers, (Known, across the Atlantic as barristers.) the best way to win an argument is to stick to your guns, do not back down, and, whatever you do, DON'T lose your temper. It's hard to think clearly when you're angry, and judges hate courtroom theatrics. If you can get the other guy to lose HIS temper, you may have an advantage. Dad could always make Cyril Wecht angry. I like to think Wecht still has nightmares about him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Cluin Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:37 AM LalalalalalaIcan'theayyouooweeooweeoooweeeeooooolalalalalalalalaladoobeedoobeedoobeeedoooyoustinkyoustinkyoustinklalalalalalalalalooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeoooooooolalalalalala..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: ced2 Date: 28 Feb 04 - 04:39 AM If it is the 5min arguement does that involve personal invective and abuse or is that only part of the full half hour? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bohdran Killer Date: 28 Feb 04 - 04:55 AM I've told you once. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:42 AM Arguing to win takes away one of the greatest pleasures and benefits from arguing: That some argument, example, fact forces you to change your mind. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: kendall Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:04 PM Never argue with someone whose opinion you don't respect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 04 - 01:23 PM Wives are especially good at this one. How many wives you got there, Amos? I don't have any advice for you, JTT. I don't enjoy arguing at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bill D Date: 28 Feb 04 - 02:33 PM some distinctions that haven't been explicitly made about problems with argument/discussion/debate... there are several different areas to argue about.. 1)What are the facts? (did he or did he not fire the gun) 1a) How do we interpret the facts? (was it intentional and/or justified) 2)What are your (and my) basic percepts, that is, what first principles do we accept? (is killing ever justified) 3)What should be done about the facts, if we can agree on 1) and 2). Too often arguments go on forever about 3 when there is nothing close to agreement on 1, 1a,& 2, and arguments about 1a) and 2) often get heated as we use them to explain and justify each other, without realizing what we are doing......This is often what happens when the practice I call "throwing the dart and then drawing the bullseye" occurs......someone has an emotional/personal need to defend a position, so they ignore logic and act as if 1a) and/or 2) are obvious in order to make a point....etc...etc.... and, to enlarge on Wolfgang's point, if you engage in argument ONLY to win, with no regard for the truth, then you will likely ignore any attempts like this to explain it all to you! "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts & logic." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,heric Date: 28 Feb 04 - 02:53 PM You left out the r Cluin. sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Feb 04 - 03:03 PM JTT I also enjoy arguing. My knowledge of rhetoric is not extensive, it stems from a university logic course, some education in the sciences, and from studying the media on my own. I have learned the terms for fallacies in debate, but I don't remember any besides Ad Hominem (Attack against the opponent rather than his argument.) and Straw Man. (Attack an argument the opponent has not made rather than his argument) If you argue for sport the best way to win is not to lose. Some small time arguers tend to paint themselves into corners. Whether the cause is overconfidence or belligerence, such behavior quickly loses the respect of the serious students of the game. Once an arguer resorts to childish name calling he is throwing the hail Mary pass of arguing. (Hail Mary Pass is a football term whereby, in the last seconds of the game, the quarterback of the losing team throws the ball into the end zone where his receivers are outnumbered and prays that one of them will catch it out of sheer blind stupid luck.) Martin Gibson seems to have some potential as an arguer, but he trips over his ego so often that he is often defeated, without his own realization, by those who argue, like Clint Keller, to get a close approximation of the truth. He starts threads with ridiculous assertions, weakly defends them and resorts to Ad Hominem arguments at the drop of the hat. JTT, I do have a rhetorical cheat to share with you. It is what I call the "Poor poor pitiful me Ad Hominem attack." It is a combination of the Ad Hominem and the straw man laced with a huge unhealthy dose of self pity. If you want to see examples of this, read some of Martin Gibson's posts where he accuses other Mudcatters of antisemitism. If they were antisemites, then obviously his technique could not work. If they were antisemites, they wouldn't be offended. His name calling is a triple pronged attack to devalue the argument of the other person, to denigrate the other person and to portray himself as a victim of persecution. After losing an argument on its merits to my wife, He accused her of antisemitism; a laughable accusation to anyone who knows her. When that failed to anger her, he said that he had seen her picture and admonished her not to wear a tutu in public. That type of argument I call childish stupidity. I can't call it cheating because it is more an admission of abject defeat than an attempt to win by any means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Feb 04 - 03:43 PM There is something called the 'Alpha Male Syndrome' - where one male of the pack is dominant - just because he HAS to be no 1. This need to be number one is also demonstrated by females at times - when you have several massive egos with a need to be number one, manners, intellect, talent and most other aspect of 'civilisation' go out the window (they can broken in the process as well!) When this happens, the second rate talents end up ruling - if one hangs around, or permits the nonsense to carry on - the only thing one can succced in, is proving oneself a bigger d***head than everybody else... Alpha Male Sydrome carried to it's logical end - can be sort of related to 'dog in the manger' syndrome... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Feb 04 - 03:50 PM Foolestroupe, I agree with your point but I'd like to add one observation. Insults and invective often stem from insecurity. On the Internet, I've found that some confuse the puppy which barks the loudest for the alpha male. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 04 - 04:10 PM And the winner is . . . . I have always found it difficult to argue over whether one should serve red wine with fish or have this or that for dessert. Mostly because I do not care. Debate has rules. Argument doesn't, really. No RRO in an argument. And often, it matters greatly how one argues if ya expect to change the other person's way of thinking. I own a t-shirt that reads, "I'm trying to see things from your point of view but I can't stick my head that far up my ass." I was tempted to wear it to a town council meeting one evening (under a shirt) and open the shirt if the need arose. I didn't. I was on council at the time. I guess the point I'm getting to is this: if you're right, hang in and hang on. If you're wrong, be very quiet about it. And if ya screw up, apologize. I live in a simple world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Feb 04 - 05:51 PM If you're right hang on. If you're wrong, change your mind. Before a useful duscussion can really begin you need to identify something that you are both agree on, but which somehow forms the foundation for your very different opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Feb 04 - 06:40 PM Brucie is right. It is about the rules. If there are no rules, there is no cheating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 04 - 07:06 PM It is also helpful to recognize the depth of de gustibus non disputandum; there are many areas of goodness, badness, beauty and ugliness, etc., etc., which truly have no basis other than opinion but which are constantly being pecked at as though they were issues of fact. Just review the countless threads about how good is badness. how far is up, and such issues. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Feb 04 - 08:10 PM Even in cases like that, I think there's a value in finding out what common ground there may be about other related things which you both agree on as being good or bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 04 - 09:13 PM Before I enter any argument/negotiation, I want to know as much as I can about my opponent. Just makes sense. Common ground is part of that. Well siad, McGH. There are lots of scenarios, however. Debate Argument Fight War If it's some friendly foolin' around over who's beer is better than whose, you'll run the gamut of everything from 'define beer' to 'it causes liver disease'. After a few dozen, the need for the argument gets lost. Then it's 'define bathroom' and 'it causes piss'. Speaking of which . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 04 - 09:14 PM Dang: forgot the preview button again. The who's s/b whose. I am shamed once again. Forsooth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: LadyJean Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:30 PM Insults and invective mean you don't have enough valid points. Shouting, screaming, and threats mean the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,JTT Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:37 PM An aggressive negotiator can often bully the person he's negotiating with, all right - once. But he may find fewer and fewer people who will negotiate with him again. Since Martin's talking about negotiation, rather than argument, I'll answer that. Negotiators are successful if the other person walks out of the negoriation feeling that he's got what he came for, but having also given the negotiator what he wanted. A negotiator who bullies won't be successful in the long term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:42 PM Jack, but the puppy who barks the loudest IS trying, in its delusional immature wishful thinking and very determined way, to be the Apha Male... :-) that is my point... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Jack Date: 29 Feb 04 - 11:19 AM but the puppy who barks the loudest IS trying, in its delusional immature wishful thinking and very determined way, to be the Apha Male... I certianly was not trying to undermine your point. I was simply point out that the barking puppy never gets to be the alpha male. Even if he is listened to even if, out of weariness he is heeded, he is still stuck in his little puppy world of insecurity and fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 29 Feb 04 - 07:45 PM Both negotiating and asrguing are truly very related. Both involved persuasion. What good is arguing if you don't get the other person to see your point and agree to it? If you really believe in what you are talking about and you KNOW you are right, you have failed if you do not coninvce the other person. Anjd negotiating is not always bullying. To negotiate successfully also means winning. You do not negotiate successfully if you do not win. However winning is a two way street. I have been very successful in business. To do so and negotiate successfully, you absolutely must have a reputation that people respect. When you get to the point in business that people who negotiate with you walk away knowing that you are right about something, and don't even question you much, but just respect your word, you know you are a successful negotiator. Argue to win, negotiate to win. Otherwise what are you wasting your time for? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Feb 04 - 07:48 PM I agree Jack... but he is still trying... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,freda Date: 29 Feb 04 - 08:01 PM ...Never argue with someone whose opinion you don't respect... kendall you have a mind like a steel trap. and it shines brilliantly. fred |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 29 Feb 04 - 08:01 PM What I said: argue to learn. What you learn, you have. What is it you get when you "win" an argument here and what do you do with your winnings? clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bill D Date: 29 Feb 04 - 08:21 PM well, Martin Gibson...I am glad that I often get to argue, negotiate, AND do business with folks that don't see those definitions like you do. Many of this world's troubles are due to folks who "... really believe in what (they) are talking about and ... KNOW (they) are right.." meeting-- and all refusing to back down or look at the other's point of view! And negotiating MEANS going through a process in which mutually tolerable terms are achieved..it almost never involves one person or group simply steamrolling another. It is always nice to 'win' and get a contract or point of law or concession agreed to by your opponent....but feeling like 'winning' is all there is leads to disapointments. Yeah, you can be 'successful' in everything from business to basketball to saving souls...but not everyone measures success exactly the same way. If you have never learned anything new from losing an argument, you must be either VERY smart...or very stubborn and inflexible....and I have a guess which. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Dave Hanson Date: 29 Feb 04 - 09:53 PM I KNOW I'm right, don't confuse me with the facts. eric |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 29 Feb 04 - 10:14 PM Yeah Bill D. But any realist knows no one wins them all. If you have that reality in mind, when you do lose one, you just move on to the next one. You're, right Bill D. I am very smart. Great guess. I KNOW that I am very successful at what I do, but keep guessing about things you don't know about anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Bill D Date: 29 Feb 04 - 10:39 PM well, I am, willing to learn *grin*....pretty soon, I'll know almost as much as you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Feb 04 - 11:04 PM If you have that reality in mind, when you do lose one, you just move on to the next one. I am very smart. Martin Gibson, Many of your statements on this forum belie both of these statements. I hope in future that you choose to live up to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 01 Mar 04 - 02:24 AM "What good is arguing if you don't get the other person to see your point and agree to it?" Maybe you see his/her point and then you've learned something, which is always good. But come on, MG, be a sport: I asked you a two-part question: What is it you get when you "win" an argument here? and What do you do with your "winnings"? (Matter of fact, how can you tell if you won? Or lost?) I'm honestly curious. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 01 Mar 04 - 02:44 AM Intimidation wins. Winning isn't everything, but loosing is nothing. Never enter an arguement you can't win. Always and quickly go for the jugular. Find the flaws in your opponent's faulty reasoning, and exploit them. Never admit an oversight, unless you are sure to win. Hurt others if you have to... learn to enjoy it. Cover your weaknesses with fireworks of fierceness. Do not be swayed, under any circumstances, by the truth. Believe in the sanctity of duality, and know in your bones that you are always on the right side. Losers are on the other side. Imagine that if you don't win, your opponent will humilliate you worse than you would them... (and that's a lot, looser). Or... you could discuss all things openly, mutually bending to the truth... letting people know how you see issues without persuasion. Let them react how they will, and learn to listen, and keep learning to listen. Really listen. Hear the meanings behind the words. Hear the emotions behind the meanings. Feel the pain behind the emotions. Empathize with the pain. Appreciate the person behind the pain. See yourself in the other person. See you both healing. Grow in new ways. Emerge as a better person, along with your new friend. Your choice... ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: GUEST,noddy Date: 01 Mar 04 - 04:18 AM JUST SHOUT LOUD! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: How to argue From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Mar 04 - 07:56 AM WHAT WAS THAT? BIT DEAF SON! |
