Schopenhauer, inspirando-se em Aristóteles, contou 38 estratagemas, e não creio que de há século e meio para cá tenha sido descoberto algum novo.
Eis um resumo, extraído daqui:
1. Generalization - interpret your opponent’s view very broadly, exaggerate it - it makes it more vulnerable to attacks.
2. Homonymy - extend your opponent's pronouncement onto the things which share the same name, but are in fact a different thing altogether.
3. Take in the general sense a pronouncement made in a relative sense; or at least take it from a different angle.
4. Make your opponent gradually and without their noticing accept your premises.
5. Use false premises (for the cause you think is "right") if your opponent won’t accept the right premises.
6. Hidden "petitio principii" - propose something that should be yet proven.
7. Socratic method - ask many broad questions and in your own argument use the points where your opponent’s agreement or concession is convenient to you.
8. Make your opponent angry.
9. Ask questions in unexpected order.
10. If your opponent answers in negative to the questions which would be useful for proving your thesis, ask questions about the reverse of your thesis.
11. If you use induction, i.e. show many specific examples to prove a general theory, and your opponent agrees about the examples, treat it as if he agreed on the theory.
12. If you discuss the subject that can be described in various terms, choose the vocabulary that suits you, especially the words that are not neutral but carry emotional meaning close to your point of view.
13. Present your thesis in moderate, reasonable form and exaggerate the antithesis - then make your opponent choose.
14. Brazenly behave as if your opponent’s answers to your questions proved your point, while they didn’t.
15. If you have problems with defending some paradoxical statement, follow it with some statement that it would be hard to oppose.
16. Argumenta ad hominem or ex concessis - examine if what your opponent says agrees with his earlier statements, rules of his school, sect etc. or his behaviour. For example, if your opponent defends suicide, shout: "Why then you don’t go and hang yourself?"
17. Make subtle distinctions in your earlier statements.
18. Change the subject when you’re losing.
19. At your opponent’s demand for some concrete arguments against his thesis, be general and talk about fallibility of human knowledge (on examples).
20. If you agreed with your opponent on the premises, draw the conclusion yourself even if the premises aren’t sufficient (fallacia not causae ut causae).
21. If your opponent presents a sophistic and fallacious argument, don’t waste your time with proving it is so; counter him with a similar argument. "It’s not about the truth, it is about the victory."
22. If your opponent wants you to agree on something from which directly results the problem, decline, claiming it petitio principii.
23. Make your opponent exaggerate.
24. Fabricate consequences (fallacia not causae ut causae).
25. Examine if your opponent’s examples really disprove your thesis. [Well, this one isn’t an unfair trick, I think.]
26. Retorsio argumenti - use your opponent’s argument against them. For example, if your opponent says "It’s just a child, one has to take allowances" you can use retorsio: "But exactly because he’s a child, one has to punish him, so that his bad habits don’t get to hard to eradicate".
27. Concentrate on the points that make your opponent angry.
28. Argumentum ad auditores - make an unfair charge, but the unfairness should be visible only to the expert in the field - and the general audience isn’t. If you make the audience laugh, all the better.
29. Diversion - if you’re losing, start talking about something else (see # 18...)
30. Argumentum ad verecundiam – instead of arguments you name authorities that support your position, preferably those which your opponent really respects. You can quote out of context or even fabricate quotes.
31. If you can’t find the reply to the opponent’s thesis, you can, with the subtle irony, announce your incompetence. Thus you insinuate to the audience who respect you that your opponent’s views are sheer nonsense expressed in an unintelligible way. This trick can be used only if you know that the audience respects you more than your opponent.
32. Labelling - if some of your opponent’s arguments are causing you problems, try to attribute them to some unpopular school of thought, sect etc., even if the likeness is only superficial.
33. Say: "Maybe it works in theory; in practice it’s false."
34. Attack your opponents on those points where he’s most vague and indirect. Most likely you’ve discovered their weak spots.
35. Übertrick according to Schopenhauer - instead of appealing with arguments to your opponent’s intellect, weaken his will. Try to convince your opponent that winning the discussion is against their interest.
36. Flood your opponent with a stream of nonsensical words.
37. If the opponent’s cause is right, but he chose the wrong arguments, beat the arguments and pretend you proved the whole cause wrong.
38. As Schopenhauer says, the last means - if you’re totally losing, attack the opponent personally with the insults. Argumentum ad personam.
Agora, é só escolher aquele que vos convier mais. Take your pick!
Mensagens
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário