Anatomy of how to win an argument when you're wrong.
 

ahhhh...*stretches*

First of all, when I was 14, I used to have these biblical arguments with this guy who thought he was real "clever".

Example:

I'd make the statement, "God can do anything except fail."

Then, he'd say, "If God can't fail, then he can't do anything."


^^Philosophical debates with someone who is just as backwards as you can get.
************************************************** ***
ANYWAY KIDDIES...If you want to win arguments, here's how you do it:


#1...Set your own ground rules for the argument.

Example: Make a thread called, "Proof that so-and-so is thus-and-so. Then, state, "If so-and-so doesn't respond, this PROVES they are thus-and-so.

^^The groundwork is laid. But, that's only 1/2 way there.


#2...Then, you BAIT someone into an argument with you about a topic that remotely relates to the aforementioned thread.


Example: So-and-so is fake because they believe thus-and-so, and yet, thus-and-so clearly states that so-and-so isn't this or that.


Now, the tone is inflammatory. But, the target of such a thread will no doubtedly reply because of #1.


Here's how to win arguments, even when you're flat out wrong.


Person A states: All wiggums are black. And, anything black is strong.

Person A concludes: Therefore, all wiggums are strong.


Person B says: Hold up person A. I know for a fact that ALL wiggums aren't strong because I saw a wiggum snap the other day.

Person A says: NO. You're wrong. All wiggums have to be strong because they are black. And, anything black is strong.


Person B then says: But, I don't agree that everything black is strong. To which person A says, "You're wrong, because all wiggums are black and they are all strong."

In essence, Person A has created a loop hole which allows them to win the argument by default. If Person B takes the bait, there's no way they can win an argument based on the points stipulated by person A. The truth is, Person B may not see all things black as strong. But, assuming what Person A says is true, then what person A concludes is valid. However, the problem is, not everyone accepts the "rules" of the argument from the start.


Now, on RV, most people seem to think that if enough people agree with you, then that makes something valid or true. No so.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it true or valid. Therefore, if Person A makes a thread called "So-and-so is a thus-and-such" and enough people flock in and agree, then, by default Person A seems "right" because he's set his own ground rules to which person B can't defend against. However, assuming all things equal, person B could then reject person A's initial conjectures and set the rules himself. How?


Person A makes a thread called "So-and-so eats BLAH because they look BLEH"
......
Person B can then enter the thread and say "Prove that eating blah makes you look bleh and that it's not some other factor."

Person A would then have the burden of proving their statement isn't just circumstantial and incidental.


How do you win an argument being wrong? It's simple. Set your own rules and you win by default.


Thank you.


1

to you......you have won......but to him ....he still thinks he won.......

when it comes to philosophy i dont think anyone ever win's...they just state their own opinons and move on...


just like mine^.....lol

has this ever worked?

Let's see. It works especially when one person is arguing from one frame of mind, and the other person from another.

Example:

I hold my beliefs in God close to my heart. There is no doubt. To me, it is absolute truth that I was made by intelligent design and am not a contingency. However, someone asked me "how can you believe in God when God doesn't like gay people.?"


Here's how this thread comes into play.

#1...I don't agree that God "doesn't like gay people." But, the person making the argument set that as a ground rule.

How?

They stated, "God/the bible doesn't accept gay people so how can you be a dedicated Christian?"

In essence, they're suggesting that my faith isn't real and that I'm wasting my time.

If their initial statement is true, "that God doesn't like gays," then every statement they make following it has to be true by default.

Here's the problem. I hold my beliefs as true and real. They look at this as a philosophical argument. So, to me, it's personal in that I don't accept their conclusions about my faith. Consequently, I can't win that argument because I don't agree with his initial statement.

See?

Now, I could win the argument if I agree with his initial statement and then dissect it. The problem is, I'm not willing to compromise my beliefs to win an argument against someone who is wrong and flat-out ignorant.


Get it?

lets try it.................god doesnt like gays

ummm...I'll play if you choose a different initial statement. Plus, it has to be in the form of an if/then statement aimed at someone.









1

ok i think that jesus was killed on a ploe with his hands straight up in the air witha spike through his wrists.............

^^^Man...You only stated the 1st part...After you make that statement, you have to make a "then" or "because" statement to follow...

WTF.....i must of missed something.
*scrolls up to re-read*

LMAO @ this being bullshit and not working for Q once lmao.

There is no "formula" to "win" an argument. For starters..if you're arguing to "win" you already lost.

which is why your "formula" dosen't work lmao. good times.

If you can't prove not all wiggums are strong, the person has the right to not believe you. :o

ye....both peoples are going to think their right...

i argue with people all the time about general things...even if i know something they have said is true..ill argue its not..just for the hell of it...

shit..ill even argue that the grass isnt green.....but who really cares....

idk why but thats funny as hell

certain statements doesnt need to be necesarily true for an overall argument to be valid.......

logicalllly he'd be correct (meanin the person a in Qs shit) but that doesnt mean people will still say no...... ur wrong