YouTube Transcript:
How to DESTROY Anyone in an Argument
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
View:
throughout history most philosophers
have cared about a few key things truth
logic and open inquiry but they have
failed to provide what we really want to
know how do we dominate our opponents in
a debate making them look like a fool
and us really really clever for that
matter how do we do this even if they
are right and we are wrong after all
truth can be dry boring and involve
tedious complex reasoning steps whereas
destroying someone in an argument is
deeply exciting and will make everyone
look at us and go what a smart and
handsome man I wish my boyfriend were
like him before giving us a kiss on the
lips and telling us how irresistibly
attractive we are because of our
humongous swollen brains well luckily
schopenhauer has got your back in his
brilliantly sarcastic essay on the art
of being right he outlines exactly how
you can use a myriad of underhanded and
logically spurious techniques in order
to gain the upper hand in any argument
even if you don't have a leg to stand on
and as you watch this video you'll
notice you don't have to go very far to
see these models in action littered
across the internet are these Brave
Warriors of sophistry simply choose your
preferred Guru and let them guide you
into the wonderful world of
argumentative performance using shopen
how's handbook as your definitive text
get ready to learn how politicians can
convince you of something that you know
is false why logic barely matters in
most debates and so much more so throw
out your old dusty critical thinking
books and let's learn how to destroy
people with facts and logic without
using either one so what you're saying
is the trouble with lots of debates is
there's often more than one reasonable
perspective on an issue and this is a
massive hurdle people start to think
that your opponent's position is
plausible or even just understandable
then there is every chance they will
start to listen to them and we can't
have that listening might lead to
comprehension which might lead to
persuasion at this point the debate is
lost and our ego is tossed in the bin
fortunately schopenhauer says that we
can nip this nent threat in the bud
through the careful use of exaggeration
every time your opponent puts forward a
position simply say so what you're
saying is and then fill in the blank
with the most outlandish interpretation
of their words you can possibly imagine
so if I were to argue that freedom of
speech is a good General principle in
any liberal Society you can respond by
saying oh so you think we should be able
to shout bomb in a crowded airport that
is ridiculous you can clearly see the
move being made here we have taken my
statement that freedom of speech should
be highly valued and reinterpreted Free
Speech to mean a total lack of
restrictions on any speech rather than
leaving room for a more moderate
position that would admit of certain
caveats there are a number of ways you
can achieve this exaggeration you can
pretend that in affirming a particular
case of something your opponent has
actually agreed to a much more General
principle so in the above example I
could put on my best foe outraged face
and say well I never this guy wants to
control what people can say and do well
actually their argument simply points
out that in the particular case of
yelling bomb at an airport we might want
to make an exception to the general rule
of not policing speech we can also
interpret every use of a word with some
inherent vagueness in the most bizarre
and ridiculous way possible so if they
say bad we will pretend they have said
equivalents to the Devil Himself and if
they say good we will interpret that as
completely Beyond reproach as if it is
the Wellspring of morality this ensures
that their true point will be completely
obscured with only an implausible straw
man left in its place and that sets us
up perfectly for our next move if you
want to help me make more videos like
this then please consider subscribing to
either my channel my email list or my
patreon the links are in the description
two what I'm saying is to continue our
misrepresentative Gambit we can bolster
our own arguments by essentially
splitting them in two we will have one
very careful circumspect rational and
almost truistic position and another one
which is much looser but can also do a
lot more for us whenever we're not being
actively criticized we can assert the
looser position and then Retreat back
into our stronger one if anyone raises
an objection if I wanted to argue for
the abolition of puppies I would start
by saying something really sensible like
certain types of large dog can be very
dangerous then when my opponent has
taken their eye off the ball I can start
talking about banning puppies more
openly but when they regain focus and
point out that my position is ridiculous
I can say get a load of this guy he
doesn't think that dogs can be dangerous
this is known as a Mot and Bailey
argument or a Mot and Bailey fantasy if
you're talking to someone who cares
about logical principles it is perfect
when you want to smuggle in a position
without anyone noticing the slight of
hand maneuver going on if you're really
good at this then you can convince
people of whatever you like framing the
entire discussion as if it follows from
an obvious truism eventually people may
become so confused that they'll start to
think your extreme suggestions are
simple entailments of your more minimal
position so someone will hear certain
types of dog are dangerous and
immediately think this means we have to
eliminate all puppies without stopping
to consider whether that actually
follows from their original statement
the ideas will become associatively
welded to one another this means we'll
be able to bypass The Logical reasonable
part of someone's mind and get great to
the good stuff the stuff that is more
willing to hang on our every word
unthinkingly if you use this strategy
and the previous one together
successfully it becomes basically
impossible to lose an argument as far as
your viewers or listeners or audiences
concerned you are a very reasonable
person holding a perfectly obvious
position whereas your opponent is making
some plainly ridiculous claim they
cannot possibly defend it's a way of
poisoning the well before you even
really get started anyone watching will
begin from the position that you are
probably right and then you just have to
Lampoon the straw version of your
opponent's argument that you've
constructed to hammer home the message
it basically does itself but of course
we're just getting started now we have
to move on to the business of active
argumentation and how to come out on top
even when you really shouldn't three the
endless assault of questions in another
one of my videos we went through the
careful way that Socratic questioning
can be used to clarify what someone says
in a discussion and how it can
facilitate good faith argumentation
where both you and your interlocutor can
come to a mutual understanding of one
another's points in order to learn
something new and hopefully get closer
to the truth but who cares about that
now we must forget Socrates and employ
questions in an entirely different way
one aims to baffle and confuse rather
than illuminate we must keep our
opponent constantly on their toes with
questions that are either irrelevant to
their overall point or simply lead them
in the direction we want them to go so
if you're presenting the pro puy league
and I am still on my puppy Annihilation
campaign I might send a merciless
barrage of questions your way they might
range from ones that imply something is
nebulously untoward about your character
why is it exactly that you have such a
perverse affection for Kines Mr Jones
two ones that are evidently loaded so
how do you account for the fact that
dogs have consistently been used as
weapons of war throughout history to
ones that are simply beside the point is
it not true Mr Jones that you were
recently seen in the company of not dogs
but cats our aim here is not to use
questions to understand but to undermine
even the most intelligent people can be
reduced to stuttering and silence if you
throw enough varied inquisitions at them
in quick succession you're essentially
forcing their minds to continuously jump
from issue to issue never letting them
rest long enough so that they can form a
coherent thought it goes without saying
that we should only pay attention to the
answers of these questions when it suits
us so if they give a perfectly sensible
response we should just ignore them
refusing to even acknowledge it but
obviously if they slip up giving an
answer that seems unsatisfactory or is
confusing or contradict something they
said earlier in the debate even slightly
then we can pounce upon that we
triumphantly cry upon closer inspection
your whole position falls apart for the
rest of the encounter we should not let
them forget this coming back to it
whenever we get the sense a bit too
comfortable best of all would be if we
get them to make a series of flawed or
confusing or contradictory answers in
quick succession as this is sure to
provoke a laugh from anyone watching
this is all to give the impression that
your opponent does not even know what
they are talking about despite the fact
they might be very knowledgeable some of
the best types of questions to provoke
this sort of reply are ones that contain
within them a presupposition that the
debator does not agree with so I could
ask but given that puppies are evil why
shouldn't we get rid of them then not
only does the speaker have to answer the
question they are also bound to want to
dispel this presupposition or else
they'll be seen as implicitly endorsing
it and of course my opponents would not
want to concede the idea that puppies
are evil however to anyone watching it
just looks like someone's giving a long
convoluted response to a downright
simple question this would leave the
impression that we are a superior
intellect easily able to trip our
opponents up with Elementary questions
about puppies of course this is even
easier if you prime your audience to
feel like you must be fundamentally in
the right and this is where shopen how's
next observation enters the arena four
control the metaphors a lot of us like
to go around pretending that we are very
rational but in recent years we've
started to discover just how many extra
logical factors influence our judgments
and decisions and just one of these is
the power that framing metaphors and
labels have on our thoughts for instance
if the losses in a situation are
emphasized more than the gains then it
makes people more risk averse even if
the actual facts have not changed at all
but this cognitive bias presents a
gleeful opportunity for the unscrupulous
debator who cares nothing for truth and
simply wants Victory the prospect of
controlling the frame of the discussion
this can be done in a number of ways
first we give our position a name that
is packed as full as possible with
positive connotations so we won't call
our worldview puppy nihilism but instead
something like maing protectionism and
this will stretch to the metaphors we
use we won't paint ourselves as joyously
arguing for the an ation of innocent
puppies but instead we'll emphasize all
of the protective elements of our
position we will Express real Sympathy
for the puppies we don't want to hurt
them we'll say we just recognize that
this is a sad necessity of protecting
people from harmful guard dogs we will
Proclaim that those who oppose us are
not doing so out of some affection for
puppies they just don't have the guts to
do what must be done we won't call them
puppy lovers but instead something more
nefarious like puppy Fanatics or the
puppy League of course the particular
context will dictate which metaphors it
Mak sense to use if we want to appeal to
those who consider themselves supremely
rational then we will emphasize the
hysterical nature of caring so deeply
about puppies we'll use terms like puppy
worshippers and pup sterio if we want to
make it seem like our opponents are out
of touch then we can talk about those
fortunate enough to have the time to
care about puppies if we want people to
view our opponents as just evil then we
can emphasize what we say are the
downsides of puppies and then say that
they act L support that then the puppy
supporter becomes a Ming Enthusiast or a
dog poo lover the possibility stretch as
far as your logical conscience is
willing to accommodate and this does not
just end at controlling the terms used
in a debate it can stretch to the way
that we talk about the power dynamics at
play in one situation we can argue that
we're only saying what everyone else is
thinking and it's only because the
powers that be prevented that people
aren't speaking out more against puppies
alternatively if we want to appeal to
people that consider themselves
intelligent and moderate then we can say
that really this is the position of the
thinking man we are the few who are
enlightened enough to stand up for
killing puppies when most are still
dreaming of unrealistic scenarios of
humans and puppies living in harmony but
you and I we've thought about it we know
the truth we could also associate the
puppies or their supporters with a group
of people maligned by our audience which
in different scenarios might be the rich
or the poor or certain foreign Nations
as I said the possibilities are endless
none of this directly argues for our
position or adds a single logical reason
to believe in it because it doesn't have
to it's playing on people's identities
very few people want to be seen as
hysterical or unthinking so the more we
keep implying that our opponents must be
like that the less people want to take
up the cause of the puppies we're then
controlling not just the debate but the
way the debate is perceived if we are
able to frame the whole issue in our
favor either by presenting ourselves as
the sensible voice of reason fending off
some Fringe lunatics or as a small
independent group of Brave truth tellers
revealing hidden secrets then a great
many people who don't know anything
about the questions involved will
probably accept this presentation and
think ah well the anti- MERS do seem to
be the rational ones here and they'll be
much more likely to unthinkingly Parrot
our position when done skillfully this
is a proper Master stroke for the
manipulative debator as it allows them
to pre-weight this discussion and any
further discussions in their favor which
is quickly becoming a consistent theme
of the video and in a similar vein we'll
now move on to a devious type of trap to
lay for our unsuspecting opponent one
that can actually turn their Superior
know against them five the strength of
Common Sense how many times have you
heard someone defend a position by
saying well it's just common sense isn't
it of course strictly speaking this
doesn't support anything Common Sense is
a pretty fallible way of establishing
whether something is correct if we had
clung desperately to our common sense
since 3000 BC then we would arguably
still believe that the sun god Rah
fought monsters over the course of the
night to ensure that he rose again the
next morning after all how else would
the sun keep coming back it's just
common sense this this is where
schopenhauer's next dastardly play comes
in he points out that one of the best
ways to make an informed opponent seem
foolish is to say something wrong but
that appears to be common sense and then
let them try and refute it probably
using some long explanation that draws
on their particular expertise you can
imagine this happening in a historical
debate about geocentrism the belief that
the Earth is the center of the universe
and everything else orbits it at least
in theory the geoc Centrist could say
look we seem to stay still don't we and
the sun seems to move no doubt a crowd
of non- astronomer 16th century
onlookers would be pretty satisfied with
this line of reasoning it appeals to
common sense of course the actual
historical Renaissance position of
geocentrism was much more sophisticated
than this I don't want to misrepresent
that after this kernus has to take the
stand and carefully explain that there
are actually subtle contradictions in
the best geocentric models of the solar
system and that if you move to a more
complex heliocentric model then this
clears some of them up then a century
later Kepler would have to interject and
say that our best heliocentric models
actually make slightly more accurate
predictions of planetary movements than
are best geocentric ones sure they are
technically you know correct but the
very length of their explanation would
probably cause many listeners to go look
how hard they have to work to deny the
basic facts of the matter the sun
revolves around the earth get over it
it's just common sense this reflects the
observations of Behavioral Economist
Daniel Carman that we often prefer a
simple explanation to one that is
complicated but ultimately closer to the
truth it is often a much better way of
managing our mental resources if reality
is too complex to understand at a glance
then unless the issue is of
life-changing import we may as well just
move on in ignorance but for the
dishonest debator this opens up a great
opportunity to get the upper hand by
making sure their position is not
necessarily correct but definitely seems
simpler than their opponents this will
allow that ever helpful Common Sense
advantage to kick in and you'll have an
inherent Head Start in any confrontation
with someone arguing something more
complicated and the great thing about
your opponent embarking on a lengthy
explanation of a complex point is that
you can do the following to great effect
six interrupt imagine the time giving an
in-depth presentation of quite a
delicate argument perhaps I am arguing
that despite girdle's second
incompleteness theorem there are still
multiple helpful uses for second order
logic this would take quite a long time
and require several reasoning steps that
some people might question especially if
they're not presented in a sufficiently
nuanced way so what would make turning
this difficult task into a near
impossible one well interrupting me
every few seconds would probably do the
trick then I would lose my place
multiple times and be much more likely
to put something clumsily allowing for
my points to become confused or garbled
then I will leave the impression on
anyone present that I'm not confident in
my argument or that I do not
sufficiently understand it it will seem
like you are showing me up as you
forensically analyze my argument in real
time as I'm giving it of course in
reality all you're doing is not letting
me get a word in edgeways but that's
besides the point as I said at the
beginning we are not concerned with good
faith truth logic or validity we are
concerned with winning dominating and
destructing and for all its
philosophical flaws this strategy can
leave the strong impression of Victory
this Interruption tactic is especially
important to do if your opponent looks
like they have an argument that will
actually end up refuting your position
then you are in a race to interrupt them
before they can reach their dreaded QED
you see this an awful lot in interview
programs in an effort to catch out their
subjects the interviewer will refuse to
let them finish their point and instead
insist on taking issue with every step
of the argument as it progresses I think
people are luckily starting to see
through this trick more often but it's
still incredibly common and if you plan
to be a disingenuous arguer it is an
invaluable tool in Your Arsenal and it
might also have the rather Nifty side
effect seven make your opponent angry
the trouble with calm people is that a
lot of the time they're pretty
reasonable they are often able to
formulate their arguments both
intelligently and convincingly and this
is really annoying if your overall goal
is just to trick people into agreeing
with you so if our opponent is on the
verge of making some sense we must nip
that in the Bud immediately by making
them as angry as humanly possible when
someone is angry it's much harder for
them to refute your arguments Point by
point they are much more likely to drift
off topic or become incoherent or just
make a fool of themselves at this point
you can pretty much ignore anything
they've said so far and simply point at
them and say goodness me how can I be
expected to debate with such a person
after the discussion people will be
talking about how calm and collected you
were in the face of this clearly
unhinged adversary despite the fact that
you set out to get under their skin in
the first place of course how you make
this person angry is contextual and also
entirely up to you you might launch a
series of unjustified ad homonym attacks
and hope that they take the bait maybe
your constant interruptions will be
sufficient to make them snap perhaps you
can just speak in a supremely derisive
tone of voice condescension dripping
from your every passing word until they
find your very presence insulting I'll
leave you to work out the details but
the main objective is to be a complete
windup Merchant once your opponent is
frothing at the mouth they'll be unable
to challenge your position meaning that
you win by default sure we've missed out
on the potential to have our views
challenged and made someone look like an
idiot for no reason but we won and
that's the important thing then again
what's the point in winning if we don't
get across the further idea that we are
beings of unparalleled intellect brain
box Titans straddling the channel
through which lesser mines paddle in
their silly little boats well luckily
our next point should clear this up
nicely eight toss a word salad now we
have come my most Amorous and treasured
squabbler to the juncture at which we
commence the audacious explorations of
the isle's most theside we must pluck
the loquacious fruits from the evergreen
tree at the midmost yard of the garden
of faux eloquence we shall conquer the
monosyllabic dispense with the
comprehensible and Retreat into the safe
Refuge of near unintelligibility or to
quote WC Fields if you can't Dazzle them
with Brilliance then baffle them with
but in this case we must
carefully construct our dress
it up in the finery of academic language
and Technical terminology so that to the
uninformed Observer it looks like a
Colossus of intellectual capability but
on closer inspection it's just a shop
mannequin in a cheap powdered wig this
is a way of achieving the Aesthetics and
authority of intellectualism without
having to do any of that messy thinking
or learning to the untrained ey we will
appear exactly like any other incredibly
clever person after all we've got the
lingo down we ourselves with authority
we speak with assured confidence at
first glance anyone would take us to be
an expert on whatever we are speculating
about according to his Memoir the
reformed con man Frank Abel Jr was able
to pass as a pilot a doctor and even an
FBI agent simply by means of his own
unflappability and by dressing the part
and these identities are all much easier
to disprove than a nebulous claim of
expertise or authority so we'll probably
have a much easier time than franked of
course there will always be some people
who see through the Skies but they will
be drowned out by the sheer number of
onlookers Star Struck by your extensive
vocabulary and nice tweed jacket someone
can even fall into this Trope without
realizing it one of the reasons I say
pretty much once every video that I am
not some Grand Authority in that you
should draw your own conclusions is that
the mixture of my Posh accent eccentric
demeanor and way of writing might trick
you into thinking that I am anything
more than just some guy with a few books
and I would be eager to disabuse you of
any such notion but if you do want to
put on the Thrills and Petty coats of
the intelligencia employing helpful
servings of word salad along the way
then it might just be your shortcuts to
winning an argument even if you haven't
done 5 minutes of research but now some
final decorations on the cake nine some
miscellaneous pointers some of shopen
how's tips and tricks can't be neatly
grouped together like I have done for
previous sections so here's a selection
of some of his Greatest uncategorized
Hits consider using personal insults if
you're backed into a corner this will
force your opponents to try to defend
their character which will then derail
the discussion if you refuse someone's
particular argument then claim that the
conclusion of that argument is therefore
false disallowing them to have any
further argument in its favor if their
position has never been tested state
that it's good in theory but just would
not work in practice if pressed avoid
elaborating why if you have nothing to
say to directly challenge your opponent
simply point to some general but
irrelevant concern like how everyone is
wrong sometimes or that nothing is
certain conflate terms that have no
business being conflated make your
opponents choose between two extremes
obscuring any reasonable Middle Ground
begin an argument with everyone knows
that so that people understand where
they should stand on the issue if you're
close to being defeated just suddenly
change the subject above all if you want
to be a successful dishonest arguer you
must learn how to never concede except
on the most minor points anytime you are
forced to give something up simply
pretend that you haven't later in the
argument and ignore what you said before
each time it appears you've lost some
dialectical territory launch an
immediate Counterattack to reclaim it or
just assume it again when your
opponent's not looking refuse to engage
with the substance of your
interlocutor's arguments and employ
every tactic of exaggeration obfuscation
and Distortion in your power to make
them seem ridiculous nothing is off the
table no principle should hold you back
from an ad homonym attack or a blatant
misrepresentation cast logic out the
window it is no longer your master your
only Guiding Light is the Optics of what
you're doing how it will be seen by
others whether they'll think you have
won the debate don't see conversation as
a potential search for truth but rather
a competitive sparring match where the
object is to humiliate rather than
construct or communicate and of course
don't admit to anyone that this is what
you're doing but say that we don't want
to do any of this say we are exactly the
kind of idealistic truth-loving
philosophers that a deceptive debator
would treat with derision and Scorn what
can we take away from shopen how's
biting satire on how discourse tends to
function 10 the lessons of Deceit right
I'm going to remove my slightly sardonic
intensely sarcastic hat and let's assume
that what you and I are interested in is
actually the truth we ideally want good
faith debates to proceed between two
respectful and open-minded participants
so that the truth can be converged upon
provided we have all of the relevant
information well on the one hand if you
don't mind playing their game it offers
a series of rhetorical tricks you could
use if you're ever confronted with an
opponent who is clearly interested in
stooping to that level as schopenhauer
says I think seriously in the
argumentative arena in practice it is
not enough to merely be right you must
also be able to swat away all of the
limic persuasive but logically
fallacious objections you will encounter
but even if you're not planning to dive
into the wonderful and terrifying world
of public debate schopenhauer's work is
fantastic for inoculating us against the
kind of argumentative moves people make
that are merely sophistic tricks that
distract us from the real issue at hand
it lets you know whether you're watching
someone who genuinely wants to
understand a topic or someone who just
wants to appear right some Anarchist
philosophers interpret mavell the prince
as a warning about all the ways leaders
can seize and maintain power that are
deadly efficient but morally horren and
I think we can view shopen how's
sarcastic essay in a similar way it is
showing us the tricks of the trade used
by bad faith actors who care less about
truth or logic and more about simply
getting their idea shoved into your
skull and who are willing to use any
means necessary to do so and in our
internet age where anyone can post any
opinion on any topic the skill of
separating education from indoctrination
is vital for staying sane to paraphrase
the opening pages of schopenhauer's
essay the issue of OB truth is
inexpedient if your only aim is to
change someone's mind or to win at any
cost and you would be surprised at just
how often people trade in honesty logic
and consistency for a slim shot at glory
of course a much more important skill
than knowing how to deceive someone into
thinking that you're correct is how to
actually critically analyze both someone
else's views and your own and click here
to watch my video on that very topic and
stick around for more on thinking to
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms
Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!
YouTube
←
→
↻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
YoutubeToText
←
→
↻
https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc