Re: (Fwd) How to Argue Effectively (fwd)

[Terry Noland <dnoland@selu.edu>]

	Did you get this from the Scott Elliot Guide to Effective 
Debating Techniques?  This sounds remarkably like the techniques my coach 
teaches at SLU.

On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Yuval Malchi wrote:

> 
>            "HOW TO ARGUE EFFECTIVELY"
> 
> 
> I argue very well.  Ask any of my remaining friends.  I can win an
> 
> argument on any topic, against any opponent.  People know this and
> 
> steer clear of me at parties.  Often, as a sign of their great
> 
> respect, they don't even invite me.  You too can win arguments.
> 
> Simply follow these rules:
> 
> 
> 
>     *Drink liquor.
> 

Been there...Done that...

> 
> 
> Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding
> 
> on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about.  If you're
> 
> drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang
> 
> back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls
> 
> your date.  But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover
> 
> you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy.  You'll be a WEALTH
> 
> of information.  You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights
> 
> and possibly upsetting furniture.  People will be impressed.
> 
>  Some may leave the room.
> 
> 
> 
>     *Make things up.
> 

What debater doesn't make things up????

> 
> 
> Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove
> 
> that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact
> 
> that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a
> 
> bunch of Peruvians be better off.  DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are
> 
> underpaid."  Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981
> 
> dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum,
> 
> which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
> 

I have actually heard this arguement in a round!!  Does that mean the 
situation in Chiapas was all a lie?!?!?!?

> 
> 
>     NOTE:  Always make up exact figures.
> 
> 
> 
> If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up
> 
> too.  Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for
> 
> the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?"
> 
> Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left
> 
> your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
> 

Hmm...sounds like Nanotech card cites to me...:)


>     *Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
> 

Like I said...What debater doesn't????

> 
> 
> You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at
> 
> your opponents when they make valid points.  The best are:
> 
> 
> 
>     You're begging the question.
> 
>     You're being defensive.
> 
>     Don't compare apples to oranges.
> 
>     What are your parameters?
> 
> 
> 
> This last one is especially valuable.  Nobody (other than engineers
> 
> and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
> 

So that's why Trey Gibson docked my speaks at La. Tech?!   I didn't use 
the word PARAMETERS!!!!!!!!!


>
>     *Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously
> 
> right and you are spectacularly wrong.  Bring Hitler up subtly.  Say,
> 
> "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or
> 
> "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
> 
> 

Works every time!!

> 
> So that's it.  You now know how to out-argue anybody.  Do not try to
> 
> pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
> 
> 

I swear if I didn't know better I'd almost have to cite you for 
plagiarism...BUT!!!!!  Considering this is all a big joke...:)



****************************************************************************
* David Terrell Noland, Esq.           |  Don't wait till you have lost    *
* Email: dnoland@plato.rtl.selu.edu    |  something to realize it's        * 
*        pcom2126@vega.selu.edu        |  value.  Then it will be too      *
*				       |  late to cash in on it's worth.   *
*                                      |                 - self            *
****************************************************************************

---

• Prev by Date: re:student judges--Double Standard in Evidence
• Next by Date: Re: Mutual pref/Pick at least 20
• Prev by thread: re:student judges--Double Standard in Evidence
• Next by thread: Evidence-Student Judge Double Standard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page