Most people don’t know how to argue. Or rather, they do it poorly. Facing an opponent, they go in a frontal assault - and very seldom win. That is because a direct charge rarely brings you a decisive victory, either on a battlefield or in a debate.
To win quickly and decisively, you must come up with something smarter.
Like Frederick the Great did.
"By attacking in the flank, an army of 30,000 might defeat an army of 100,000 men”
(attributed to Friedrich II)
Let’s revise the most common mistake almost all the debaters commit:
Contrarianism
Almost all who argue, adopt a purely contrarian stance against their opponent.
Like a frontal assault makes for the simplest, the most intuitive, and the easiest to execute battlefield tactics, contrarianism is the least complicated approach in debates. That’s what makes it so common and inefficient.
Now let’s see how it works. Let’s say your opponent made their argument:
Premises → Conclusion
It is very important to understand that premises are (usually) purely instrumental. An opponent may not even believe in all of his premises very much. He believes in the conclusion and chooses his premises accordingly.
Yet, most arguers start battling with premises.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to kamilkazani to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.