There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until the
fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:


1. Argue from the particular to the general.

Reason that if a thing is true in a particular example then it is true
in general. There may be little similarity between your example and the
point in debate but your opponent will have to prove this unless he spots
the fallacy. If he does then feign incomprehension.

2. Argue from the general to the particular.

Reason that if a thing is generally true then it must be true in the
particular case in question. Refuse to agree that any special circumstances
apply to the subject in debate. If your opponent points out the fallacy of
generalisations then complain that he is making a generalisation.


3. Beg the question.

Make a statement that can only be true if the debate has already been
resolved in your favour, ie use your opinion to prove your opinion. Totally
confounds the debate if the fallacy is not spotted by your opponent. If it
is, state that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

4. Change the subject.

Done nonchalantly so your opponent doesn't notice this will pull the rug
out from under him. If he realises and complains, pretend your new subject
is the one under debate.

5. Quote the absent expert.

Declare an absent party to be an expert who supports your case. He
possibly isn't an expert or wouldn't in fact support you but your opponent
cannot debate this person or yourself on the point since he is not
available.

6. Argue from a position of ignorance.

This is a powerful technique that operates on the principle that
ignorance is knowledge. It works like this, because you don't know a certain
proposition is false then you are entitled to presume it is true. Almost
anything you like can be "proved" with this technique.

7. Produce a straw man.

Propose an example or analogy to the debate that has an obvious outcome
in your favour, ie a "straw man" that can easily be knocked down. The
analogy can be highly flawed but your opponent may be trapped into proving
the straw man has no weight.

8. Make opinions into facts.

Claim anything you like is a fact, provide no supporting evidence or
argument and pretend that your opponent must disprove it immediately or
else agree it is true. Also be sure to ignore his facts no matter how well
supported. This will test his patience sorely and may cause him to make
errors.


9. Produce a red herring.

Make a statement of known fact that appears to be relevant and has the
potential to confuse the issue. An effective red herring relies on your
opponent's failure to realise that it is not relevant to the debate. If he
does, then accuse him of ignoring the facts.

10. Insult your opponent.

If all else fails, your opponent is calm and rational, spots your traps
and exposes your fallacies and distractions every time then resort to using
sneers, derision and personal jibes. Your opponent may lose his temper and
that means you win!

---------------------------------------------------------


Postscript.


It is possible to combine two or more of the above techniques for
increased power to prove anything. By combining #1 and #2 you can argue from
the particular to the particular, that is use one example to prove something
about another unrelated one.

Better still, quote an example only you know about as this makes you the
expert. If your opponent falls into the trap of asking questions about the
example then you are in a position to say whatever you like.

A proficient cheat employs all the above techniques in every debate. He
jumps easily from one fallacy to the next in order to keep his opponent from
making any headway. He may not convince his opponent of anything that he is
saying but will have the satisfaction of having done most of the talking and
kept control over the discussion.

When the opponent becomes annoyed with this "barrage of bull****" the
cheat will call the debate off saying that: "we are just going around in
circles" which is of course not only true but was his real aim all along.
This is known as having the last word, a form of parting blow or insult. A
cheat knows that you never lose a debate that YOU finish!


But most of you already know all this.

The rest are masters at it - like Pat and Fred.




.......... Phil

Thinking,

These are so cogent, where did you copy them from pa?
It is obvious this is not your writing stye, which everyone
has come to know.

So from whom and where did you plageraize this material?

From which part of the WWW did it come?
References, son, references.

Regards,

Spike


On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:55:53 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until the
fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:


1. Argue from the particular to the general.

Reason that if a thing is true in a particular example then it is true
in general. There may be little similarity between your example and the
point in debate but your opponent will have to prove this unless he spots
the fallacy. If he does then feign incomprehension.

2. Argue from the general to the particular.

Reason that if a thing is generally true then it must be true in the
particular case in question. Refuse to agree that any special circumstances
apply to the subject in debate. If your opponent points out the fallacy of
generalisations then complain that he is making a generalisation.


3. Beg the question.

Make a statement that can only be true if the debate has already been
resolved in your favour, ie use your opinion to prove your opinion. Totally
confounds the debate if the fallacy is not spotted by your opponent. If it
is, state that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

4. Change the subject.

Done nonchalantly so your opponent doesn't notice this will pull the rug
out from under him. If he realises and complains, pretend your new subject
is the one under debate.

5. Quote the absent expert.

Declare an absent party to be an expert who supports your case. He
possibly isn't an expert or wouldn't in fact support you but your opponent
cannot debate this person or yourself on the point since he is not
available.

6. Argue from a position of ignorance.

This is a powerful technique that operates on the principle that
ignorance is knowledge. It works like this, because you don't know a certain
proposition is false then you are entitled to presume it is true. Almost
anything you like can be "proved" with this technique.

7. Produce a straw man.

Propose an example or analogy to the debate that has an obvious outcome
in your favour, ie a "straw man" that can easily be knocked down. The
analogy can be highly flawed but your opponent may be trapped into proving
the straw man has no weight.

8. Make opinions into facts.

Claim anything you like is a fact, provide no supporting evidence or
argument and pretend that your opponent must disprove it immediately or
else agree it is true. Also be sure to ignore his facts no matter how well
supported. This will test his patience sorely and may cause him to make
errors.


9. Produce a red herring.

Make a statement of known fact that appears to be relevant and has the
potential to confuse the issue. An effective red herring relies on your
opponent's failure to realise that it is not relevant to the debate. If he
does, then accuse him of ignoring the facts.

10. Insult your opponent.

If all else fails, your opponent is calm and rational, spots your traps
and exposes your fallacies and distractions every time then resort to using
sneers, derision and personal jibes. Your opponent may lose his temper and
that means you win!

---------------------------------------------------------


Postscript.


It is possible to combine two or more of the above techniques for
increased power to prove anything. By combining #1 and #2 you can argue from
the particular to the particular, that is use one example to prove something
about another unrelated one.

Better still, quote an example only you know about as this makes you the
expert. If your opponent falls into the trap of asking questions about the
example then you are in a position to say whatever you like.

A proficient cheat employs all the above techniques in every debate. He
jumps easily from one fallacy to the next in order to keep his opponent from
making any headway. He may not convince his opponent of anything that he is
saying but will have the satisfaction of having done most of the talking and
kept control over the discussion.

When the opponent becomes annoyed with this "barrage of bull****" the
cheat will call the debate off saying that: "we are just going around in
circles" which is of course not only true but was his real aim all along.
This is known as having the last word, a form of parting blow or insult. A
cheat knows that you never lose a debate that YOU finish!


But most of you already know all this.

The rest are masters at it - like Pat and Fred.




.......... Phil

Spike wrote:
Thinking,

These are so cogent, where did you copy them from pa?
It is obvious this is not your writing stye, which everyone
has come to know.

So from whom and where did you plageraize this material?

I seem to recognize this. I believe it might have come from rat's other
nomadic A**hole. Andre Jute.

Jute could have written it. PA, never. It doesn't say f*ck anywhere
in it. If you eliminate the garden variety swear words, PA loses 50%
of his vocabulary.

-Chuck

From which part of the WWW did it come?
References, son, references.

Regards,

Spike

Chuck Harris wrote:
Spike wrote:

Thinking,

These are so cogent, where did you copy them from pa?
It is obvious this is not your writing stye, which everyone
has come to know.

So from whom and where did you plageraize this material?


I seem to recognize this. I believe it might have come from rat's other
nomadic A**hole. Andre Jute.

Jute could have written it. PA, never. It doesn't say f*ck anywhere
in it. If you eliminate the garden variety swear words, PA loses 50%
of his vocabulary.

-Chuck

Jute posted one of his writings about an "imaginary" character named
"Timmy the Wannabe" (aka "Manifesto of Malice") but I can't find it now.
It may have been on his website, which is now long defunct. At any rate,
here's one of the highlights:

quote
Tell a lot of brazen lies brazenly. Do not deign to argue the merits of
these lies when challenged. Simply think up some bigger lies and make
new charges. Or repeat old ones in slightly different words. Take a high
moral tone; claim to be making the charges as a public duty. Study the
career of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister; Goebbels was
the greatest PR man of the century.

Andre Jute
/quote

I suspect that the present subject copied his list of fallacies from a
textbook or other reference source, since Googling for some of the more
unique phrases only brings up "his" contribution.

I do agree that PA could not have possibly written it himself. And we
can be grateful that while he shares Jute's malice, he doesn't share his
intellect.

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...
There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until the
fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:

big snip

I'm not taking sides, but the aforesaid argument fallacies can be found in
my Ethics 101 course text book. There are a few more fallacies that were
left out, but it's essentially word-for-word.
west

west wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until the
fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:


big snip

I'm not taking sides, but the aforesaid argument fallacies can be found in
my Ethics 101 course text book. There are a few more fallacies that were
left out, but it's essentially word-for-word.
west

Yes, the "ad hominem" is especially conspicuous in its absence -
"Attacking the person instead of the argument."

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

"Spike " wrote in message
...


These are so cogent, where did you copy them from pa?


** The post is entirely my own work.

No references were used.




............ Phil

"Fred Nachbaur"


I do agree that PA could not have possibly written it himself.


** Proves what an absolute jerk-off you are Fred. You are incapable of
recognising real intelligence.


BTW

I wrote that list 10 years ago - I first posted it on "aus.hi-fi" about
two years ago.





............ Phil

"west" wrote in message
...

I'm not taking sides, but the aforesaid argument fallacies can be found in
my Ethics 101 course text book. There are a few more fallacies that were
left out, but it's essentially word-for-word.


** It is not "word for word " with anything.

You are a liar.



........... Phil

"Fred Nachbaur"


Yes, the "ad hominem" is especially conspicuous in its absence -
"Attacking the person instead of the argument."



** What do you think number 10 is ?

****head.




........... Phil

"west" wrote in news:3vkgb.22479$3b7.1870
@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...
There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until
the
fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:

big snip

I'm not taking sides, but the aforesaid argument fallacies can be found
in
my Ethics 101 course text book. There are a few more fallacies that were
left out, but it's essentially word-for-word.
west



Watch, it is time for PA to call someone a liar soon.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Rich Andrews wrote:

"west" wrote in news:3vkgb.22479$3b7.1870
@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
.au...

There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until

the

fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:

big snip

I'm not taking sides, but the aforesaid argument fallacies can be found

in

my Ethics 101 course text book. There are a few more fallacies that were
left out, but it's essentially word-for-word.
west




Watch, it is time for PA to call someone a liar soon.

r

Already happened. Must not have propagated to your server yet.

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

"Rich Andrews"



Watch, it is time for PA to call someone a liar soon.



** Plenty of culprits here to call that over and over.





........... Phil

"Fred Nachbaur"

Already happened. Must not have propagated to your server yet.



** So you are in support of liars - Fred?

You support Pat so it would figure.

Not to mention your own whoppers.






.......... Phil

Fred Nachbaur wrote in news:Hfqgb.28479$da3.9713
@edtnps84:



Rich Andrews wrote:

"west" wrote in news:3vkgb.22479$3b7.1870
@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
m.au...

There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until

the

fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:

big snip

I'm not taking sides, but the aforesaid argument fallacies can be found

in

my Ethics 101 course text book. There are a few more fallacies that
were
left out, but it's essentially word-for-word.
west




Watch, it is time for PA to call someone a liar soon.

r

Already happened. Must not have propagated to your server yet.

Cheers,
Fred

So it has.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Chuck Harris wrote:

Spike wrote:
Thinking,

These are so cogent, where did you copy them from pa?
It is obvious this is not your writing stye, which everyone
has come to know.

So from whom and where did you plageraize this material?

I seem to recognize this. I believe it might have come from rat's other
nomadic A**hole. Andre Jute.

Jute could have written it. PA, never. It doesn't say f*ck anywhere
in it. If you eliminate the garden variety swear words, PA loses 50%
of his vocabulary.

How *dare* you compare this humorless ****wad to Jute?
Jute was *hilarious*. He was a master tweaker, he had
damn near everyone in the joint apoplectic at the drop
of a few dozen words. Jute's a *writer*. Ill Phallison's
just a goddamn rude-ass PUTZ. SHAME on you. Taketh
not the Name of Jute in vain.

Lord Valve
Jute-y Jute-y Jute-y...

whooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa!!!!!
what a PRICK!

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

** Proves what an absolute jerk-off you are Fred. You are incapable
of
recognising real intelligence.


BTW

I wrote that list 10 years ago - I first posted it on "aus.hi-fi"
about
two years ago.





........... Phil

Take it easy LV! I didn't compare them FAVORABLY. PA is
just a mosquito compared to AJ's rump.

-Chuck

Lord Valve wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:


Spike wrote:

Thinking,

These are so cogent, where did you copy them from pa?
It is obvious this is not your writing stye, which everyone
has come to know.

So from whom and where did you plageraize this material?

I seem to recognize this. I believe it might have come from rat's other
nomadic A**hole. Andre Jute.

Jute could have written it. PA, never. It doesn't say f*ck anywhere
in it. If you eliminate the garden variety swear words, PA loses 50%
of his vocabulary.


How *dare* you compare this humorless ****wad to Jute?
Jute was *hilarious*. He was a master tweaker, he had
damn near everyone in the joint apoplectic at the drop
of a few dozen words. Jute's a *writer*. Ill Phallison's
just a goddamn rude-ass PUTZ. SHAME on you. Taketh
not the Name of Jute in vain.

Lord Valve
Jute-y Jute-y Jute-y...

"Chuck Harris"


** A pig like you just HAD to be a pal of Wanking Willy Boy.

How brown is thy tongue ?




............ Phil

That's method ten Phil, did you really come up with that
list independently to Schopenhauer?

"Mark Harriss" wrote in message
...

That's method ten Phil, did you really come up with that
list independently to Schopenhauer?


** Schopen ... who ???






.......... Phil

Artur The.

"Eritristic Dialectic" , if I spelled correctly.
Well known book for ppl capable to learn smthng positive from da book.

prick.

--
.................................................. ........................
Choky
Prodanovic Aleksandar
YU

"don't use force, "don't use force,
use a larger hammer" use a larger tube
- Choky and IST"
- ZM
.................................................. ...........................
...
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

"Mark Harriss" wrote in message
...

That's method ten Phil, did you really come up with that
list independently to Schopenhauer?


** Schopen ... who ???






......... Phil