reptilicas

One possibility should never be forgotten; your case or proposal may be a good one but it many not be perfect. That is, there may be problems or objections to it that cannot be satisfactorily answered.

But what happens if you feel that your defense has not been strong enough or that there are lingering doubts in the minds of the audience? At this point you should avoid sticking to the point. What you must do is draw attention to a side issue where you feel particularly strong. This will give the impression that you are still in charge of the course of the discussion. There are several things to keep in mind when casting out a red herring. First, although it is a side issue, it must be related at least indirectly to the issue you are discussing, otherwise the audience within accept it. Second, the issue you introduce must have sufficient emotional appeal to catch attention immediately. It should be so strong that you can work it as long as you want. Third, you must make sure that you present this issue in such a way that you and the audience inevitably end up on the same side while your opponent ends up on the other side.

If you are accused of being inconsistent, deny it! First, there may be a simple misunderstanding involved and you can easily clear it up. Second, there may be no problem at all and the accusation is merely an attempt on the part of the opposition to embarrass you. In this case, you should point it out publicly chastise the opposition. Third, there may very well be an overlooked inconsistency. In this case, you should confidently move to reinterpret what you said so as to make the contradiction disappear.

Defenses can be challanged as being either too strict or too permissive in the sense of being unusual. If you are charged with taking terms too narrowly, and especially if you are charged with making your position true by definition, then reply the we must have clear thoughts, otherwise equivocation will be the undoing of us all. By themselves, definitions mean little, but in tandem with other things they can be highly significant. It is therefore not just the definition that is at issue but the other elements you employ with it. Quoting Out of Context Like any other charge, this one should be denied.

Your generalizations are attacked when someone tries to point out that there is an exception to them. There are three answers to this charge. First, the exception may be irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. Second, you may claim that the exception is not really an exception and accuse your opponent of special pleadings. You argue that the grounds on which he claims to make an exception (attacks based on the charges of accident or division) are not good grounds. The third defense against the charge of a hasty generalization (or the existence of an exception to your generalization) is to fall back on the wise saying that "the exception proves the rule" and hope for the best. This, by the way, implies (but don't tell anyone about it) that the more exceptions there are the better the rule is.

If you used statistics, and if your opponent attacked your use of statistics in any manner, then your defense should be as follows. On the one hand, if he accuses you of not using a random, representative, or adequate sample, you counter this by asking him to define what a random sample is. He will be unable to define a random sample. Statistical information consists of a mathematically expressed relationship between two or more things. However, no amount of statistical information can establish an invariable or causal relationship between two or more things without independent evidence. The whole point of using statistical evidence is that it is only used when we do not know the direct connection or complex of connections among things. But without the theory, the evidence makes no sense. Hence, statistical evidence by itself does not prove or disprove anything, but together with other pieces of information it may be meaningful. Anyone who attacks your statistical evidence and ig

The inability to disprove your case is tantamount defined: equivalent as in value, force, effect or significantion to a proof that it is correct. As long as nobody can show that you are absolutely mistaken, then act as if you are absolutely right. Keep harping upon the fact that some of the things you said, even if they are trival, are right and that the opposition cannot disprove your case.

Since one of the major ways in which a case is attacked is to extend it to an extreme, you must be prepared to offset this kind of tactic if it is used against you.

Every defense must have a counterattack, that is, a refutation of the charges made against your case by the opposition. Statement of Your Case The opposition has misstated your case, no matter what the opposition has said, you should make this claim because (a) if the opposition has misstated your case because it misunderstood your case, then by implication the opposition might not be very bright; (b) if the opposition has misstated your case but understands your case very well, then by implication the opposition is dishonest; (c) this gives you the opportunity to restate your case, and you want to restate your case so as (1) to reinforce in the minds of the audience what you want to discuss; (2) to reformulate your case in order to sidestep some of the objections made, and finally (3) to give yourself a little more time before you reply.

1. Never admit defeat. 2. Refuse to be convinced. 3. Retain your self-confidence. 4. Do not underestimate the opposition. 5. A defense is also an attack.

Debates usually include three parts. 1. a presentation, 2. a questioning period (a form of attack and defense), 3. an opportunity for rebuttal. The courts give both the presecution and the defense an opportunity for an introductory statement, the presentation of a case, cross-examination, and an opportunity for summation. If you are also thinking about your defense while you are preparing your presentation, you might come up with a better presentation and a better defense because you have anticipated what the objection might be. As is always the case when you are trying to win, the major thing to look for is audience reaction. Try to determine the extent to which your objection has been successful in breaching your defense. What particular points of yours were most easily overwhelmed, which remained steadfast and resisted all assaults, and, especially, which were ignored by the opposition? Your evaluation of what worked and what did not work with the audience should determine w

Just as the major objective of the person asking the questions is to expose a contradiction, so the major objective of the person answering the questions is to avoid a contradiction. If you discover the ultimate contradiction toward which your opponent is leading you, quickly change the subject or try to move off on a tangent and thus lead the discussion away from that issue. If the discussion turns on some crucial matter of fact, which if answered will lead to a contradiction then instead of denying its truth (which might prove embarrassing if you are wrong) simply declare that you are an incompetent judge on that subject and refrain from expressing an opinion. Usually it is not good form to admit ignorance, but in this case it is more important to avoid stepping into a contradiction. One of the devices used to shake up, anger, or embarrass you will be for your opponent to declare that he does not understand what you are saying.

W hen asking questions of your opposition your major aim is to elicit a contradiction. You do this primarily by getting him to make two contradictory statements. Since he is likely to be looking out for this possibility, it is better to hide the conclusion toward which you are driving. In addition, you might ask leading questions, surreptitiously introduce the premises you want brought out, and mix up the order so that it is not apparent in what direction you are going. While a verbal admission of a contradiction is the most effective way of refuting an opponent, it is not always possible to obtain one. The next best thing is to point out, if possible, a contradiction or inconsistency between the spoken word and behavior. If you cannot elicit the contradiction in a formal or informal way, proceed next to try to get your opponent to become angry. If you find that you are succeeding in your questioning and that your opponent knows this, then you may find that he refuses to accept anyt

There are some special things to keep in mind if you are engaged in a face-to-face debate, cross-examinations of your opponents, or the give and take of common discussions. There are three aims in any face-to-face debate, first, and foremost, you are trying to elicit a contradiction from your opponent; second, you are trying to embarrass opposition publicly; third, you are trying to convince the audience of your proficiency.

The only test of a conclusion or principle is to extend it to the extreme in order to see how well it works. Thus whenever your opponent gives his conclusion, assume that he means it to be a general principle. For example, if he concludes that we should send aid to a country in distress (for example, Ethiopia), then you should assume that he wants to send aid to every country in distress. If he attempts to reject this notion, then counter by asking why some are to be favored over others. The second way is directly criticize it for not achieving some other function or goal. For example, if you are arguing against aiding Ethiopians, then you should point out that such aid will in no way end the hostilities in Africa. The specific function not achieved should be something that you think the audience considers important. The third way of attacking a conclusion directly is to treat your opponent's conclusion as contrary and not as contradictory. What does this mean? Usually,you a

If your opponent has used statistical information or particular facts of any kind to arrive at a generalization, then you should claim that the generalization was too hasty. This can be done in one of two ways. Either you provide evidence of an exception to his generalization, or you argue that he did not examine enough cases even if you cannot think of a counterinstance. A variation of this argument is the claim that no adequate sample was used. Try to impress upon the audience the foolhardiness of any generalization by thinking of an example that they will recognize as too hasty. For example, if your opponent is trying to characterize Orientals as not being ready for democracy, you might point out to an audience of those who are sympathetic to the plight of black people that the same sort of argument was used by Southern racists for not granting blacks the right to vote. Southerners were a bit hasty, maybe your opponent is too. Composition The fallacy of composition is another in

Before actually demolishing the conclusion you should try to make your audience realize that you have exposed cracks in the brittle structure offered by your opponent. So you should begin by offering a general characterization of your opponent's argument. Summarize what you take to be the case of your opponent, but in order to clarify the case for the audience you should engage in a little translation so as to put that case in as bad a light as possible. Take the words used by your opponent and try to substitute those having a negative connotation in the mind of the audience. Below are a few example of such translation. discriminate = prejudice alteration = radical innovation existing order = antiquated prejudice religious zeal = fanaticism law and order = political repression In addition, you should be a picayune as possible by picking on his actual words rather than his meaning. The task will be made especially easy for you if your opponent takes the trouble of trying to make

As we noted before, there are two kinds of analogies, literal and figurative. In the case of literal analogies one argues that similarities in several crucial respects implies similiarity in some other respect. Since all analogies can only be partial, the refutation of a literal analogy depends upon finding one or more features that differ between the two things being compared and to press the point that it is this difference or these differences that become crucial. There are two ways of attacking an analogy. Show your opponent either that there are grave dissimilarities or that there are weaknesses in the similarities.

If your opponent offers a nonstandard definition, then there are two things you can do. First you should point out that the definition used is nonstandard. If your audience is annoyed by nonstandard definitions, then engage in a supplementary ad hominem at once. If mere exposure does not work, then try a second kind of attack. Usually an odd definition is an attempt to make something true by definition. If this is so, then expose your opponent as offering a circular argument or petito principii. Suppose your opponent is trying to prove the existence of God and offers the following argument: The Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that God exists. _____________________ Therefore, God exists. The evidence for the existence of God is a set of statements in the Bible. When questioned as to why we should believe the Bible, our opponent argues that (1) God, by definition, is truthful, and (2) the Bible is, by definition, the word of God. Now, even if I accept the first definition

In giving a critique of someone else's classification you are doing so for the benefit of the audience. Hence, it is important to keep in mind the audience's point of view. The first way of undermining a classification is to find an exception. Exceptions are of two kinds. (1) either something that does not fit at all, or (2) something that fits in more than one place.

Most people distrust abstractions. Hence, in order to undermine the use of abstractions and theoretical constructs in the arguments of your opponent, you must first point out that such abstractions exists. For example, if your opponent analyzes the behavior or motivation of someone in terms of the Freudian unconscious or subconscious, you must point out that these are abstract terms. Second, no abstract term, by definition, can refer to one or more things that are directly observable. This is where audience distrust is to be exploited. Point out how impossible that the thing really does not exist.

One may attack the particular statistics evidence offered by an opponent in the presentation of his case. That evidence or information may simply be false. On the other hand, it may be true information but incorrectly interpreted. How does one correctly interpret statistical evidence? To begin with, we use statistical evidence only when we cannot get at something directly. The group of things being examined is called the population and the portion that I directly examine is called the sample. When we draw a conclusion about the population based upon the sample, we are making a statistical inference. If the inference is to be of any help, then the sample must not be biased or loaded. Another way of putting it is that the sample must be random in the sense that it represents a cross section of the whole population. The most devastating blow that can be delivered against statistical evidence is the claim that is not a random sample, i.e., that the sample is biased or unrepresentativ

The obvious refutation of an appeal to precedent is to invoke a counter-precedent. The second way of attacking a precedent is to show that it does not apply to the case at hand because of the presence of extenuating circumstances or significant differences. The third way of critcizing a precedent is to show what happens when a precedent is extended to its extreme.

Ad populum appeals by their very nature are very popular. The major ploy against them is to invoke another ad populum that supports your case and/or goes against the case of your opponent, one that you think might have an even greater appeal. There is a second way of attacking your opponent's use of the ad populum appeal. This way is to be used only if you cannot think of an effective counter ad populum appeal. You must point out to your audience the extent to which most people accept is wrong. You can derive this point home by giving examples, such as the fact that many people once believed that the earth was flat, and surely the majority opinion here was wrong.

There are two ways of undermining your opponent's use of authorities, either by an ad hominem attack on his specific authorities, or by providing counter-authorities. Further, there are at least six different kinds of ad hominem attack upon authority. First, if a man is quoted as an authority and at the same time is known to have opinions that are inconsistent with the appeals to pity, ad populum, or precedent used by your opponent, then you should pounce upon this inconsistency. Second, if the alleged expert belongs to a group or exponses a cause to which you know the audience is opposed or hostile, then undermine the authority by use of guilt by association. Third, an expert may be undermined by pointing out the distinction between theory and practice. Lots of things sound good in theory, and then a complete flop in practice. Moreover, we all know that the experts produced by our opponent are people who live in ivory towers (i.e., they teach at colleges or universities) far re

The appeal to pity, like the appeals to authority, ad populum, and precedents, is largely an attempt to gain the sympathy of the audience. If any of these appeals has been successful, then it is important to realize that the audience has a certain sympathy for that kind of argument. Hence the refutation follows one of two patterns; either we invoke a higher order appeal of the same nature, or we attempt to turn the tables. If your opponent has appealed to pity, then you should act as if his example of pity is a general premise. Then add some premise of your own that you think would be accepted by the audience and derive a conclusion which is inconsistent with that of your opponent. We suppose the appeal to pity to have been an effective one. The audience obviously feels pity for those who suffer. The only way to counter this appeal is to point out that, then (adding the supplementary premise). Now add: We turn the tables by deriving a different conclusion from the same premise:

Remember, all of your opponent's arguments can be shown to be defective. Argument to be refuted A: inconsistent with objective facts B: internally self-contradictory C: false reason or premise D: false implications or results E: false (1) fact (2) logic F: conclusion does not follow Every argument consists of a major point or conclusion supported by premises or reasons that allegedly provide evidence for the conclusion. When attacking an argument, we are claiming one of two things, or perhaps both: An argument is defective (1) when the evidence contradicts the conclusion, or (2) when the evidence is simply false or inadequate. B: An argument is internally self-contradictory either when one of the premises contradicts the conclusion or when the premises contradict each other. A: An argument may be inconsistent with objective fact when either the premises or reasons appealed to are simply false. C: , or the implications or results of the conclusion would be consider

There are two main reasons for learning techniques of attacking arguments. First, one can build a strong case for his own position if, in addition to presenting positive considerations for it, he shows that there are serious weaknesses in the arguments for its rivals. Remember, in this connection, that few positions of practical importance can be conclusively proved; thus, while you are not likely to be able to prove your own position, you can make it look very good indeed by punching holes in the arguments of the opposition. Second, once you have mastered the art of offense you will undoubtedly become more sophisticated in defense of your original position anticipating what and where the attacks against you will originate and how they might progress is half the battle. Audience Reaction Before you do anything else you must guage audience reaction to the original presentation of your opponent's case. There are three possible reactions: (1) either your opponent has been successfu

First, you must have a clear idea of just what your case, issue, or point of view is. Second, you must be aware of the relation of your position on this case or issue to your position on other issues. The reason for this obvious. You do not want to present your case on one issue in such a way that it might cause conflicts or future embarrassments when you present your position on another issue. Third, you should have some clear idea of the audience to whom you are presenting your case. Are their people who already share your opinion, are they undecided, or are they likely to be unreceptive or openly hostile? No doubt your audience may consist of any combination of the foregoing possibilities. Different audiences will require different approaches. Fourth, you must understand the medium you are using to convey your case. Are you speaking directly to people? Finally, you must constantly keep in the forefront of your mind the purpose for which you are presenting your case. If you

The Ideal of Logic If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Example: "Plato" All triangles are closed three-sided figures. That object is a triangle. _______________________________________ Therefore, that object is a closed three-sided figure. "Aristotle" All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. ______________________ Therefore, Socrates is mortal. "All men are mortal," is known from experience. The movement from individual experiences or facts like "Sophories is mortal" and "Creon is mortal" to the general truth, "All men are mortal" is called induction, but the movement from the general truth "All men are mortal" to "Socrates is mortal" is called deduction. The ideal of logic has always been a deductive argument that begins with some general truth of the form "All Xs are Ys." The Western mind has subsequently constructed and reconstructed all arguments as deductive arguments