0:01 throughout history most philosophers
0:04 have cared about a few key things truth
0:07 logic and open inquiry but they have
0:09 failed to provide what we really want to
0:11 know how do we dominate our opponents in
0:13 a debate making them look like a fool
0:16 and us really really clever for that
0:18 matter how do we do this even if they
0:21 are right and we are wrong after all
0:24 truth can be dry boring and involve
0:26 tedious complex reasoning steps whereas
0:28 destroying someone in an argument is
0:30 deeply exciting and will make everyone
0:32 look at us and go what a smart and
0:33 handsome man I wish my boyfriend were
0:35 like him before giving us a kiss on the
0:37 lips and telling us how irresistibly
0:39 attractive we are because of our
0:42 humongous swollen brains well luckily
0:44 schopenhauer has got your back in his
0:46 brilliantly sarcastic essay on the art
0:49 of being right he outlines exactly how
0:51 you can use a myriad of underhanded and
0:53 logically spurious techniques in order
0:55 to gain the upper hand in any argument
0:58 even if you don't have a leg to stand on
0:59 and as you watch this video you'll
1:01 notice you don't have to go very far to
1:03 see these models in action littered
1:05 across the internet are these Brave
1:07 Warriors of sophistry simply choose your
1:09 preferred Guru and let them guide you
1:11 into the wonderful world of
1:13 argumentative performance using shopen
1:16 how's handbook as your definitive text
1:18 get ready to learn how politicians can
1:20 convince you of something that you know
1:22 is false why logic barely matters in
1:25 most debates and so much more so throw
1:27 out your old dusty critical thinking
1:29 books and let's learn how to destroy
1:31 people with facts and logic without
1:34 using either one so what you're saying
1:36 is the trouble with lots of debates is
1:38 there's often more than one reasonable
1:40 perspective on an issue and this is a
1:42 massive hurdle people start to think
1:44 that your opponent's position is
1:46 plausible or even just understandable
1:47 then there is every chance they will
1:49 start to listen to them and we can't
1:51 have that listening might lead to
1:53 comprehension which might lead to
1:55 persuasion at this point the debate is
1:57 lost and our ego is tossed in the bin
1:59 fortunately schopenhauer says that we
2:01 can nip this nent threat in the bud
2:04 through the careful use of exaggeration
2:06 every time your opponent puts forward a
2:08 position simply say so what you're
2:09 saying is and then fill in the blank
2:11 with the most outlandish interpretation
2:13 of their words you can possibly imagine
2:15 so if I were to argue that freedom of
2:17 speech is a good General principle in
2:19 any liberal Society you can respond by
2:21 saying oh so you think we should be able
2:23 to shout bomb in a crowded airport that
2:26 is ridiculous you can clearly see the
2:27 move being made here we have taken my
2:29 statement that freedom of speech should
2:31 be highly valued and reinterpreted Free
2:33 Speech to mean a total lack of
2:35 restrictions on any speech rather than
2:36 leaving room for a more moderate
2:38 position that would admit of certain
2:40 caveats there are a number of ways you
2:42 can achieve this exaggeration you can
2:44 pretend that in affirming a particular
2:46 case of something your opponent has
2:47 actually agreed to a much more General
2:49 principle so in the above example I
2:51 could put on my best foe outraged face
2:54 and say well I never this guy wants to
2:56 control what people can say and do well
2:58 actually their argument simply points
2:59 out that in the particular case of
3:01 yelling bomb at an airport we might want
3:03 to make an exception to the general rule
3:05 of not policing speech we can also
3:07 interpret every use of a word with some
3:10 inherent vagueness in the most bizarre
3:12 and ridiculous way possible so if they
3:14 say bad we will pretend they have said
3:16 equivalents to the Devil Himself and if
3:19 they say good we will interpret that as
3:20 completely Beyond reproach as if it is
3:23 the Wellspring of morality this ensures
3:25 that their true point will be completely
3:27 obscured with only an implausible straw
3:29 man left in its place and that sets us
3:31 up perfectly for our next move if you
3:33 want to help me make more videos like
3:34 this then please consider subscribing to
3:36 either my channel my email list or my
3:38 patreon the links are in the description
3:42 two what I'm saying is to continue our
3:44 misrepresentative Gambit we can bolster
3:46 our own arguments by essentially
3:48 splitting them in two we will have one
3:50 very careful circumspect rational and
3:53 almost truistic position and another one
3:55 which is much looser but can also do a
3:57 lot more for us whenever we're not being
3:58 actively criticized we can assert the
4:00 looser position and then Retreat back
4:02 into our stronger one if anyone raises
4:04 an objection if I wanted to argue for
4:06 the abolition of puppies I would start
4:08 by saying something really sensible like
4:10 certain types of large dog can be very
4:12 dangerous then when my opponent has
4:14 taken their eye off the ball I can start
4:16 talking about banning puppies more
4:18 openly but when they regain focus and
4:20 point out that my position is ridiculous
4:22 I can say get a load of this guy he
4:25 doesn't think that dogs can be dangerous
4:26 this is known as a Mot and Bailey
4:28 argument or a Mot and Bailey fantasy if
4:30 you're talking to someone who cares
4:32 about logical principles it is perfect
4:33 when you want to smuggle in a position
4:35 without anyone noticing the slight of
4:37 hand maneuver going on if you're really
4:39 good at this then you can convince
4:41 people of whatever you like framing the
4:43 entire discussion as if it follows from
4:46 an obvious truism eventually people may
4:47 become so confused that they'll start to
4:49 think your extreme suggestions are
4:51 simple entailments of your more minimal
4:54 position so someone will hear certain
4:55 types of dog are dangerous and
4:57 immediately think this means we have to
4:59 eliminate all puppies without stopping
5:01 to consider whether that actually
5:02 follows from their original statement
5:05 the ideas will become associatively
5:06 welded to one another this means we'll
5:09 be able to bypass The Logical reasonable
5:10 part of someone's mind and get great to
5:12 the good stuff the stuff that is more
5:14 willing to hang on our every word
5:16 unthinkingly if you use this strategy
5:18 and the previous one together
5:19 successfully it becomes basically
5:22 impossible to lose an argument as far as
5:24 your viewers or listeners or audiences
5:26 concerned you are a very reasonable
5:28 person holding a perfectly obvious
5:30 position whereas your opponent is making
5:33 some plainly ridiculous claim they
5:35 cannot possibly defend it's a way of
5:37 poisoning the well before you even
5:39 really get started anyone watching will
5:41 begin from the position that you are
5:42 probably right and then you just have to
5:44 Lampoon the straw version of your
5:45 opponent's argument that you've
5:48 constructed to hammer home the message
5:50 it basically does itself but of course
5:52 we're just getting started now we have
5:53 to move on to the business of active
5:56 argumentation and how to come out on top
5:59 even when you really shouldn't three the
6:01 endless assault of questions in another
6:03 one of my videos we went through the
6:05 careful way that Socratic questioning
6:07 can be used to clarify what someone says
6:08 in a discussion and how it can
6:11 facilitate good faith argumentation
6:12 where both you and your interlocutor can
6:14 come to a mutual understanding of one
6:15 another's points in order to learn
6:18 something new and hopefully get closer
6:20 to the truth but who cares about that
6:22 now we must forget Socrates and employ
6:24 questions in an entirely different way
6:27 one aims to baffle and confuse rather
6:29 than illuminate we must keep our
6:31 opponent constantly on their toes with
6:33 questions that are either irrelevant to
6:34 their overall point or simply lead them
6:37 in the direction we want them to go so
6:38 if you're presenting the pro puy league
6:41 and I am still on my puppy Annihilation
6:43 campaign I might send a merciless
6:45 barrage of questions your way they might
6:47 range from ones that imply something is
6:49 nebulously untoward about your character
6:51 why is it exactly that you have such a
6:54 perverse affection for Kines Mr Jones
6:57 two ones that are evidently loaded so
6:58 how do you account for the fact that
7:00 dogs have consistently been used as
7:03 weapons of war throughout history to
7:05 ones that are simply beside the point is
7:07 it not true Mr Jones that you were
7:09 recently seen in the company of not dogs
7:11 but cats our aim here is not to use
7:14 questions to understand but to undermine
7:16 even the most intelligent people can be
7:18 reduced to stuttering and silence if you
7:19 throw enough varied inquisitions at them
7:21 in quick succession you're essentially
7:23 forcing their minds to continuously jump
7:25 from issue to issue never letting them
7:27 rest long enough so that they can form a
7:30 coherent thought it goes without saying
7:32 that we should only pay attention to the
7:34 answers of these questions when it suits
7:36 us so if they give a perfectly sensible
7:38 response we should just ignore them
7:40 refusing to even acknowledge it but
7:42 obviously if they slip up giving an
7:44 answer that seems unsatisfactory or is
7:46 confusing or contradict something they
7:49 said earlier in the debate even slightly
7:50 then we can pounce upon that we
7:53 triumphantly cry upon closer inspection
7:55 your whole position falls apart for the
7:56 rest of the encounter we should not let
7:58 them forget this coming back to it
8:00 whenever we get the sense a bit too
8:02 comfortable best of all would be if we
8:04 get them to make a series of flawed or
8:06 confusing or contradictory answers in
8:07 quick succession as this is sure to
8:09 provoke a laugh from anyone watching
8:11 this is all to give the impression that
8:13 your opponent does not even know what
8:14 they are talking about despite the fact
8:16 they might be very knowledgeable some of
8:18 the best types of questions to provoke
8:20 this sort of reply are ones that contain
8:21 within them a presupposition that the
8:23 debator does not agree with so I could
8:26 ask but given that puppies are evil why
8:28 shouldn't we get rid of them then not
8:30 only does the speaker have to answer the
8:32 question they are also bound to want to
8:34 dispel this presupposition or else
8:36 they'll be seen as implicitly endorsing
8:37 it and of course my opponents would not
8:39 want to concede the idea that puppies
8:41 are evil however to anyone watching it
8:43 just looks like someone's giving a long
8:45 convoluted response to a downright
8:46 simple question this would leave the
8:48 impression that we are a superior
8:51 intellect easily able to trip our
8:53 opponents up with Elementary questions
8:55 about puppies of course this is even
8:57 easier if you prime your audience to
8:59 feel like you must be fundamentally in
9:02 the right and this is where shopen how's
9:05 next observation enters the arena four
9:07 control the metaphors a lot of us like
9:09 to go around pretending that we are very
9:11 rational but in recent years we've
9:13 started to discover just how many extra
9:15 logical factors influence our judgments
9:17 and decisions and just one of these is
9:20 the power that framing metaphors and
9:22 labels have on our thoughts for instance
9:24 if the losses in a situation are
9:26 emphasized more than the gains then it
9:28 makes people more risk averse even if
9:30 the actual facts have not changed at all
9:32 but this cognitive bias presents a
9:34 gleeful opportunity for the unscrupulous
9:36 debator who cares nothing for truth and
9:39 simply wants Victory the prospect of
9:41 controlling the frame of the discussion
9:43 this can be done in a number of ways
9:45 first we give our position a name that
9:47 is packed as full as possible with
9:49 positive connotations so we won't call
9:51 our worldview puppy nihilism but instead
9:54 something like maing protectionism and
9:55 this will stretch to the metaphors we
9:58 use we won't paint ourselves as joyously
10:00 arguing for the an ation of innocent
10:02 puppies but instead we'll emphasize all
10:04 of the protective elements of our
10:06 position we will Express real Sympathy
10:08 for the puppies we don't want to hurt
10:10 them we'll say we just recognize that
10:13 this is a sad necessity of protecting
10:15 people from harmful guard dogs we will
10:17 Proclaim that those who oppose us are
10:19 not doing so out of some affection for
10:22 puppies they just don't have the guts to
10:24 do what must be done we won't call them
10:26 puppy lovers but instead something more
10:28 nefarious like puppy Fanatics or the
10:31 puppy League of course the particular
10:32 context will dictate which metaphors it
10:35 Mak sense to use if we want to appeal to
10:37 those who consider themselves supremely
10:38 rational then we will emphasize the
10:41 hysterical nature of caring so deeply
10:43 about puppies we'll use terms like puppy
10:45 worshippers and pup sterio if we want to
10:47 make it seem like our opponents are out
10:48 of touch then we can talk about those
10:50 fortunate enough to have the time to
10:52 care about puppies if we want people to
10:55 view our opponents as just evil then we
10:56 can emphasize what we say are the
10:58 downsides of puppies and then say that
11:01 they act L support that then the puppy
11:03 supporter becomes a Ming Enthusiast or a
11:06 dog poo lover the possibility stretch as
11:07 far as your logical conscience is
11:09 willing to accommodate and this does not
11:11 just end at controlling the terms used
11:13 in a debate it can stretch to the way
11:15 that we talk about the power dynamics at
11:17 play in one situation we can argue that
11:19 we're only saying what everyone else is
11:20 thinking and it's only because the
11:22 powers that be prevented that people
11:24 aren't speaking out more against puppies
11:26 alternatively if we want to appeal to
11:27 people that consider themselves
11:29 intelligent and moderate then we can say
11:31 that really this is the position of the
11:33 thinking man we are the few who are
11:35 enlightened enough to stand up for
11:36 killing puppies when most are still
11:39 dreaming of unrealistic scenarios of
11:41 humans and puppies living in harmony but
11:43 you and I we've thought about it we know
11:45 the truth we could also associate the
11:47 puppies or their supporters with a group
11:50 of people maligned by our audience which
11:51 in different scenarios might be the rich
11:54 or the poor or certain foreign Nations
11:55 as I said the possibilities are endless
11:57 none of this directly argues for our
11:59 position or adds a single logical reason
12:01 to believe in it because it doesn't have
12:03 to it's playing on people's identities
12:05 very few people want to be seen as
12:07 hysterical or unthinking so the more we
12:09 keep implying that our opponents must be
12:10 like that the less people want to take
12:12 up the cause of the puppies we're then
12:14 controlling not just the debate but the
12:16 way the debate is perceived if we are
12:18 able to frame the whole issue in our
12:20 favor either by presenting ourselves as
12:22 the sensible voice of reason fending off
12:24 some Fringe lunatics or as a small
12:26 independent group of Brave truth tellers
12:28 revealing hidden secrets then a great
12:30 many people who don't know anything
12:31 about the questions involved will
12:33 probably accept this presentation and
12:35 think ah well the anti- MERS do seem to
12:37 be the rational ones here and they'll be
12:39 much more likely to unthinkingly Parrot
12:41 our position when done skillfully this
12:43 is a proper Master stroke for the
12:45 manipulative debator as it allows them
12:47 to pre-weight this discussion and any
12:49 further discussions in their favor which
12:51 is quickly becoming a consistent theme
12:52 of the video and in a similar vein we'll
12:55 now move on to a devious type of trap to
12:57 lay for our unsuspecting opponent one
12:59 that can actually turn their Superior
13:01 know against them five the strength of
13:03 Common Sense how many times have you
13:05 heard someone defend a position by
13:07 saying well it's just common sense isn't
13:09 it of course strictly speaking this
13:11 doesn't support anything Common Sense is
13:13 a pretty fallible way of establishing
13:15 whether something is correct if we had
13:16 clung desperately to our common sense
13:19 since 3000 BC then we would arguably
13:20 still believe that the sun god Rah
13:22 fought monsters over the course of the
13:24 night to ensure that he rose again the
13:26 next morning after all how else would
13:28 the sun keep coming back it's just
13:29 common sense this this is where
13:32 schopenhauer's next dastardly play comes
13:33 in he points out that one of the best
13:35 ways to make an informed opponent seem
13:37 foolish is to say something wrong but
13:39 that appears to be common sense and then
13:41 let them try and refute it probably
13:43 using some long explanation that draws
13:45 on their particular expertise you can
13:47 imagine this happening in a historical
13:49 debate about geocentrism the belief that
13:50 the Earth is the center of the universe
13:52 and everything else orbits it at least
13:54 in theory the geoc Centrist could say
13:57 look we seem to stay still don't we and
13:59 the sun seems to move no doubt a crowd
14:00 of non- astronomer 16th century
14:02 onlookers would be pretty satisfied with
14:04 this line of reasoning it appeals to
14:05 common sense of course the actual
14:07 historical Renaissance position of
14:09 geocentrism was much more sophisticated
14:10 than this I don't want to misrepresent
14:12 that after this kernus has to take the
14:14 stand and carefully explain that there
14:15 are actually subtle contradictions in
14:17 the best geocentric models of the solar
14:19 system and that if you move to a more
14:21 complex heliocentric model then this
14:23 clears some of them up then a century
14:25 later Kepler would have to interject and
14:27 say that our best heliocentric models
14:28 actually make slightly more accurate
14:30 predictions of planetary movements than
14:32 are best geocentric ones sure they are
14:34 technically you know correct but the
14:36 very length of their explanation would
14:38 probably cause many listeners to go look
14:40 how hard they have to work to deny the
14:42 basic facts of the matter the sun
14:45 revolves around the earth get over it
14:47 it's just common sense this reflects the
14:49 observations of Behavioral Economist
14:51 Daniel Carman that we often prefer a
14:53 simple explanation to one that is
14:55 complicated but ultimately closer to the
14:56 truth it is often a much better way of
14:58 managing our mental resources if reality
15:00 is too complex to understand at a glance
15:01 then unless the issue is of
15:03 life-changing import we may as well just
15:05 move on in ignorance but for the
15:07 dishonest debator this opens up a great
15:09 opportunity to get the upper hand by
15:10 making sure their position is not
15:13 necessarily correct but definitely seems
15:15 simpler than their opponents this will
15:17 allow that ever helpful Common Sense
15:18 advantage to kick in and you'll have an
15:21 inherent Head Start in any confrontation
15:23 with someone arguing something more
15:24 complicated and the great thing about
15:26 your opponent embarking on a lengthy
15:29 explanation of a complex point is that
15:31 you can do the following to great effect
15:33 six interrupt imagine the time giving an
15:35 in-depth presentation of quite a
15:37 delicate argument perhaps I am arguing
15:38 that despite girdle's second
15:40 incompleteness theorem there are still
15:42 multiple helpful uses for second order
15:44 logic this would take quite a long time
15:46 and require several reasoning steps that
15:47 some people might question especially if
15:49 they're not presented in a sufficiently
15:51 nuanced way so what would make turning
15:53 this difficult task into a near
15:55 impossible one well interrupting me
15:56 every few seconds would probably do the
15:58 trick then I would lose my place
16:00 multiple times and be much more likely
16:01 to put something clumsily allowing for
16:04 my points to become confused or garbled
16:05 then I will leave the impression on
16:07 anyone present that I'm not confident in
16:09 my argument or that I do not
16:11 sufficiently understand it it will seem
16:12 like you are showing me up as you
16:14 forensically analyze my argument in real
16:17 time as I'm giving it of course in
16:18 reality all you're doing is not letting
16:20 me get a word in edgeways but that's
16:21 besides the point as I said at the
16:23 beginning we are not concerned with good
16:26 faith truth logic or validity we are
16:28 concerned with winning dominating and
16:30 destructing and for all its
16:32 philosophical flaws this strategy can
16:34 leave the strong impression of Victory
16:36 this Interruption tactic is especially
16:38 important to do if your opponent looks
16:39 like they have an argument that will
16:41 actually end up refuting your position
16:43 then you are in a race to interrupt them
16:45 before they can reach their dreaded QED
16:47 you see this an awful lot in interview
16:49 programs in an effort to catch out their
16:51 subjects the interviewer will refuse to
16:53 let them finish their point and instead
16:55 insist on taking issue with every step
16:57 of the argument as it progresses I think
16:58 people are luckily starting to see
17:00 through this trick more often but it's
17:02 still incredibly common and if you plan
17:04 to be a disingenuous arguer it is an
17:07 invaluable tool in Your Arsenal and it
17:09 might also have the rather Nifty side
17:12 effect seven make your opponent angry
17:14 the trouble with calm people is that a
17:15 lot of the time they're pretty
17:17 reasonable they are often able to
17:18 formulate their arguments both
17:20 intelligently and convincingly and this
17:22 is really annoying if your overall goal
17:24 is just to trick people into agreeing
17:26 with you so if our opponent is on the
17:28 verge of making some sense we must nip
17:30 that in the Bud immediately by making
17:33 them as angry as humanly possible when
17:34 someone is angry it's much harder for
17:36 them to refute your arguments Point by
17:38 point they are much more likely to drift
17:40 off topic or become incoherent or just
17:42 make a fool of themselves at this point
17:44 you can pretty much ignore anything
17:46 they've said so far and simply point at
17:48 them and say goodness me how can I be
17:50 expected to debate with such a person
17:52 after the discussion people will be
17:54 talking about how calm and collected you
17:56 were in the face of this clearly
17:58 unhinged adversary despite the fact that
18:00 you set out to get under their skin in
18:02 the first place of course how you make
18:04 this person angry is contextual and also
18:06 entirely up to you you might launch a
18:08 series of unjustified ad homonym attacks
18:10 and hope that they take the bait maybe
18:12 your constant interruptions will be
18:14 sufficient to make them snap perhaps you
18:17 can just speak in a supremely derisive
18:19 tone of voice condescension dripping
18:22 from your every passing word until they
18:25 find your very presence insulting I'll
18:26 leave you to work out the details but
18:28 the main objective is to be a complete
18:30 windup Merchant once your opponent is
18:32 frothing at the mouth they'll be unable
18:33 to challenge your position meaning that
18:36 you win by default sure we've missed out
18:37 on the potential to have our views
18:39 challenged and made someone look like an
18:42 idiot for no reason but we won and
18:44 that's the important thing then again
18:46 what's the point in winning if we don't
18:48 get across the further idea that we are
18:51 beings of unparalleled intellect brain
18:53 box Titans straddling the channel
18:55 through which lesser mines paddle in
18:57 their silly little boats well luckily
18:59 our next point should clear this up
19:02 nicely eight toss a word salad now we
19:05 have come my most Amorous and treasured
19:07 squabbler to the juncture at which we
19:09 commence the audacious explorations of
19:12 the isle's most theside we must pluck
19:14 the loquacious fruits from the evergreen
19:16 tree at the midmost yard of the garden
19:18 of faux eloquence we shall conquer the
19:20 monosyllabic dispense with the
19:22 comprehensible and Retreat into the safe
19:25 Refuge of near unintelligibility or to
19:27 quote WC Fields if you can't Dazzle them
19:29 with Brilliance then baffle them with
19:31 but in this case we must
19:33 carefully construct our dress
19:36 it up in the finery of academic language
19:38 and Technical terminology so that to the
19:40 uninformed Observer it looks like a
19:42 Colossus of intellectual capability but
19:43 on closer inspection it's just a shop
19:45 mannequin in a cheap powdered wig this
19:47 is a way of achieving the Aesthetics and
19:49 authority of intellectualism without
19:51 having to do any of that messy thinking
19:53 or learning to the untrained ey we will
19:55 appear exactly like any other incredibly
19:57 clever person after all we've got the
20:00 lingo down we ourselves with authority
20:02 we speak with assured confidence at
20:04 first glance anyone would take us to be
20:06 an expert on whatever we are speculating
20:07 about according to his Memoir the
20:10 reformed con man Frank Abel Jr was able
20:13 to pass as a pilot a doctor and even an
20:15 FBI agent simply by means of his own
20:18 unflappability and by dressing the part
20:19 and these identities are all much easier
20:21 to disprove than a nebulous claim of
20:24 expertise or authority so we'll probably
20:26 have a much easier time than franked of
20:27 course there will always be some people
20:29 who see through the Skies but they will
20:31 be drowned out by the sheer number of
20:33 onlookers Star Struck by your extensive
20:35 vocabulary and nice tweed jacket someone
20:37 can even fall into this Trope without
20:39 realizing it one of the reasons I say
20:41 pretty much once every video that I am
20:42 not some Grand Authority in that you
20:44 should draw your own conclusions is that
20:46 the mixture of my Posh accent eccentric
20:48 demeanor and way of writing might trick
20:50 you into thinking that I am anything
20:52 more than just some guy with a few books
20:54 and I would be eager to disabuse you of
20:56 any such notion but if you do want to
20:58 put on the Thrills and Petty coats of
21:00 the intelligencia employing helpful
21:02 servings of word salad along the way
21:04 then it might just be your shortcuts to
21:05 winning an argument even if you haven't
21:08 done 5 minutes of research but now some
21:11 final decorations on the cake nine some
21:13 miscellaneous pointers some of shopen
21:15 how's tips and tricks can't be neatly
21:16 grouped together like I have done for
21:18 previous sections so here's a selection
21:20 of some of his Greatest uncategorized
21:22 Hits consider using personal insults if
21:24 you're backed into a corner this will
21:25 force your opponents to try to defend
21:27 their character which will then derail
21:29 the discussion if you refuse someone's
21:30 particular argument then claim that the
21:32 conclusion of that argument is therefore
21:34 false disallowing them to have any
21:36 further argument in its favor if their
21:37 position has never been tested state
21:39 that it's good in theory but just would
21:41 not work in practice if pressed avoid
21:43 elaborating why if you have nothing to
21:45 say to directly challenge your opponent
21:47 simply point to some general but
21:49 irrelevant concern like how everyone is
21:51 wrong sometimes or that nothing is
21:53 certain conflate terms that have no
21:54 business being conflated make your
21:56 opponents choose between two extremes
21:58 obscuring any reasonable Middle Ground
22:01 begin an argument with everyone knows
22:02 that so that people understand where
22:04 they should stand on the issue if you're
22:06 close to being defeated just suddenly
22:08 change the subject above all if you want
22:10 to be a successful dishonest arguer you
22:12 must learn how to never concede except
22:14 on the most minor points anytime you are
22:16 forced to give something up simply
22:18 pretend that you haven't later in the
22:20 argument and ignore what you said before
22:21 each time it appears you've lost some
22:23 dialectical territory launch an
22:25 immediate Counterattack to reclaim it or
22:26 just assume it again when your
22:28 opponent's not looking refuse to engage
22:29 with the substance of your
22:31 interlocutor's arguments and employ
22:33 every tactic of exaggeration obfuscation
22:35 and Distortion in your power to make
22:37 them seem ridiculous nothing is off the
22:39 table no principle should hold you back
22:41 from an ad homonym attack or a blatant
22:43 misrepresentation cast logic out the
22:46 window it is no longer your master your
22:48 only Guiding Light is the Optics of what
22:50 you're doing how it will be seen by
22:51 others whether they'll think you have
22:54 won the debate don't see conversation as
22:56 a potential search for truth but rather
22:58 a competitive sparring match where the
23:00 object is to humiliate rather than
23:02 construct or communicate and of course
23:04 don't admit to anyone that this is what
23:05 you're doing but say that we don't want
23:08 to do any of this say we are exactly the
23:09 kind of idealistic truth-loving
23:11 philosophers that a deceptive debator
23:14 would treat with derision and Scorn what
23:15 can we take away from shopen how's
23:18 biting satire on how discourse tends to
23:21 function 10 the lessons of Deceit right
23:23 I'm going to remove my slightly sardonic
23:25 intensely sarcastic hat and let's assume
23:27 that what you and I are interested in is
23:30 actually the truth we ideally want good
23:31 faith debates to proceed between two
23:33 respectful and open-minded participants
23:35 so that the truth can be converged upon
23:37 provided we have all of the relevant
23:39 information well on the one hand if you
23:40 don't mind playing their game it offers
23:42 a series of rhetorical tricks you could
23:43 use if you're ever confronted with an
23:45 opponent who is clearly interested in
23:47 stooping to that level as schopenhauer
23:49 says I think seriously in the
23:51 argumentative arena in practice it is
23:52 not enough to merely be right you must
23:54 also be able to swat away all of the
23:56 limic persuasive but logically
23:58 fallacious objections you will encounter
24:00 but even if you're not planning to dive
24:01 into the wonderful and terrifying world
24:03 of public debate schopenhauer's work is
24:06 fantastic for inoculating us against the
24:08 kind of argumentative moves people make
24:10 that are merely sophistic tricks that
24:12 distract us from the real issue at hand
24:14 it lets you know whether you're watching
24:15 someone who genuinely wants to
24:17 understand a topic or someone who just
24:20 wants to appear right some Anarchist
24:22 philosophers interpret mavell the prince
24:24 as a warning about all the ways leaders
24:26 can seize and maintain power that are
24:29 deadly efficient but morally horren and
24:30 I think we can view shopen how's
24:32 sarcastic essay in a similar way it is
24:34 showing us the tricks of the trade used
24:36 by bad faith actors who care less about
24:39 truth or logic and more about simply
24:40 getting their idea shoved into your
24:42 skull and who are willing to use any
24:45 means necessary to do so and in our
24:47 internet age where anyone can post any
24:49 opinion on any topic the skill of
24:52 separating education from indoctrination
24:55 is vital for staying sane to paraphrase
24:56 the opening pages of schopenhauer's
24:59 essay the issue of OB truth is
25:00 inexpedient if your only aim is to
25:03 change someone's mind or to win at any
25:05 cost and you would be surprised at just
25:07 how often people trade in honesty logic
25:11 and consistency for a slim shot at glory
25:13 of course a much more important skill
25:14 than knowing how to deceive someone into
25:16 thinking that you're correct is how to
25:18 actually critically analyze both someone
25:20 else's views and your own and click here
25:22 to watch my video on that very topic and
25:24 stick around for more on thinking to
Chrome Extension