ATTACKING AN ARGUMENT
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 successful in varying degrees in persuading the audience to adapt his point of view:
OR
(2) the audience remains undecided;
OR
(3) your opponent has been unsuccessful in varying degrees in getting the audience to accept his case.
Let us discuss general strategy with respect to these three possibilities, reversing the order of consideration. If your opponent has been unsuccessful, the first thing you must do is to pinpoint precisely those spots in his presentation that were the weakest and least successful with the audience. Then concentrate most of your fire on these spots, thereby, reinforcing in the minds of the audience the weakest of his position and your brilliance in sharing their perceptiveness. Next, when you feel that the audience is with you, you may proceed to employ the techniques and rules to be discussed below and you may do with humor and ridicule.
*Please note: humor and ridicule are effective against an opponent only if you know yourself to be prominent in the eyes of the present audience. Otherwise you will offend all concerned.
There are two special devices that should be used in a blatant manner in those cases where you are sure your opponent has been unsuccessful. These devices are the ad hominem attack and the genetic fallacy.
Ad hominem:
To attack ad hominem is to attack the man who presents an argument rather than the argument itself. There are two occasions during a discussion when you may use it, either after you have demolished the argument by independent means, or in those cases where your opponent's argument has been so unsuccessful with the audience that it is not worth demolishing. These things should be done only if needed to win. The point of ad hominem is to discredit the opposition in indirect ways.
Genetic fallacy:
The most sophisticated form of ad hominem is a special kind of counter-argument itself, namely, the genetic fallacy. To explain genetically is to describe the origin of an event, process, thing, or what have you. It is a kind of historical account of how things got that way. Usually it is employed in a diagnostic manner, thereby implying that you are discussing the case history of a disease. The anxieties, neuroses, and psychoses of many patients are identified as the result of a course of development that gegan in childhood.
We come now to the second possiblility, namely, where the audience is still undecided. You should once more try to discover which points in your opponent's presentation were stongest and which were weakest.
The third possibility is what to do if your opponent has been successful. To begin with, moral posturing calculated to shame your opponent and audience is very effective when you are the obvious underdog in a dispute. Above all, do not be so harswh with your opponent as to increase the audience's sympathy for him, and do not give the appearance yourself of being crafty or nit-picking. Know your audience.
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 successful in varying degrees in persuading the audience to adapt his point of view:
OR
(2) the audience remains undecided;
OR
(3) your opponent has been unsuccessful in varying degrees in getting the audience to accept his case.
Let us discuss general strategy with respect to these three possibilities, reversing the order of consideration. If your opponent has been unsuccessful, the first thing you must do is to pinpoint precisely those spots in his presentation that were the weakest and least successful with the audience. Then concentrate most of your fire on these spots, thereby, reinforcing in the minds of the audience the weakest of his position and your brilliance in sharing their perceptiveness. Next, when you feel that the audience is with you, you may proceed to employ the techniques and rules to be discussed below and you may do with humor and ridicule.
*Please note: humor and ridicule are effective against an opponent only if you know yourself to be prominent in the eyes of the present audience. Otherwise you will offend all concerned.
There are two special devices that should be used in a blatant manner in those cases where you are sure your opponent has been unsuccessful. These devices are the ad hominem attack and the genetic fallacy.
Ad hominem:
To attack ad hominem is to attack the man who presents an argument rather than the argument itself. There are two occasions during a discussion when you may use it, either after you have demolished the argument by independent means, or in those cases where your opponent's argument has been so unsuccessful with the audience that it is not worth demolishing. These things should be done only if needed to win. The point of ad hominem is to discredit the opposition in indirect ways.
Genetic fallacy:
The most sophisticated form of ad hominem is a special kind of counter-argument itself, namely, the genetic fallacy. To explain genetically is to describe the origin of an event, process, thing, or what have you. It is a kind of historical account of how things got that way. Usually it is employed in a diagnostic manner, thereby implying that you are discussing the case history of a disease. The anxieties, neuroses, and psychoses of many patients are identified as the result of a course of development that gegan in childhood.
We come now to the second possiblility, namely, where the audience is still undecided. You should once more try to discover which points in your opponent's presentation were stongest and which were weakest.
The third possibility is what to do if your opponent has been successful. To begin with, moral posturing calculated to shame your opponent and audience is very effective when you are the obvious underdog in a dispute. Above all, do not be so harswh with your opponent as to increase the audience's sympathy for him, and do not give the appearance yourself of being crafty or nit-picking. Know your audience.
Comments