[TruthTalk] Don't Be A Fool!

[Marlin Halverson]

This post came from "Melfi Dupui" on another forum dealing with legal issues.  The same principles apply to truth talks.  --Marlin "I remember hearing something a long time ago that was, and still is, very profound.  It goes something like this: "If you are arguing with a fool, so is he." Some topics and some people are NOT worth wasting your breath on.  For the ones that are, here is some helpful hints on conducting a meaningful (and hopefully productive) dialog.  I suppose the key to any discussion is a set subject or topic (which eliminates dirt roads and rabbit trails) and a definition of terms.  But even this does not guaranty effective and meaningful communication, especially when someone is purposely trying to confuse or fluster you because their ideology is different. The article uses "liberals," but everyone uses these tactics at some point.  So be prepared for them.  Forewarned is foreARMED! Patriotically yours, M. Liberals tend to use rhetoric and underhand tactics to 'appear' to win arguments.  That's how they can fool others (and themselves) into thinking they're smarter than others or faster on their feet in a discussion.  I've found they tend to use sophistry (false arguments) based around three major tactics: 1. The Specious Argument (an argument that appears convincing but is false).  Here they often claim to know 'facts' that bolster their cause, and they can often cite sources on the fly (usually the sources are quite poor or made-up and their 'facts' easily refuted).  However, the method is hard to counter immediately unless you have contradicting facts and sources in your memory.  The best way to counter is to disagree, ask for their sources and check them out later.  When you next meet, come armed with sources that back up your argument and information that proves their sources wrong. 2. The Straw Man Argument (responding to an opposing argument which you aren't actually making so that they can more easily attack it).  Here they choose to respond to an argument which sounds as if it's along the same lines as what you said, but which does not represent your argument.  This is a tricky one because you can quickly be drawn into it and find yourself trapped into arguing something that does not truly represent your point.  It's important here to listen carefully to how they characterize your own argument. One way to avoid such traps is to always restate your position before answering a question or making further statements. 3. The Ad Hominem Attack (attacking the arguer, not his argument).  With this tactic they will characterize your argument as worthless because you are somehow inept or flawed.  In the typical ad hominem attack, they don't address the argument, instead they seek to belittle the person making the argument, or to belittle the political philosophy of the opponent without actually making a substantive case against it/him.  This bullying tactic is a very commonly used by the inexperienced debater.  It's easy to spot and pointing out such abuse always makes the perpetrator look foolish. There's also a fourth one - 4. Pedantry: if an argument is going poorly for your opponent, they may try to tie the argument down by insisting that a strict definition of terms is adhered to, thus preventing meaningful discussion.  This tactic is rarely used, since it demands some extensive knowledge of the English language (or a talent for bluffing it).  People using this tactic are pretending that language is a science, when it's actually an art.  Of course argument itself is an attempt to create a scientific approach to problems using language, so this tactic is hard to counter. I've never heard an argument from liberals which did not involve at least one (or all) of the first three tactics.  If you learn to spot these tactics, it becomes much easier to defend against them."