Greetings fellow savants, sages, philosophers and thinkers ... Holmes at your service presenting my observation of the week - the nature of arguments. Yes, those nasty repartees we all engage with others from time to time which is fast becoming a veritbale art form of win win.

Let's take a brief look at a few definitions and origins:

An ad hominem short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.

Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy.

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is false because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

Definitions Reference: Wikipedia

Any of these sound familiar?

Let's proceed with some good advice from Mr. Paul Sloane:

There is not much point in having brilliant ideas if we cannot persuade people of their value. Persuasive debaters can win arguments using the force of their reason and by the skillful deployment of many handy techniques. Here are some general dos and don’ts to help you win arguments together with some sneaky tactics to be aware of.

Do:

1. Stay calm. Even if you get passionate about your point you must stay cool and in command of your emotions. If you lose your temper – you lose.
2. Use facts as evidence for your position. Facts are hard to refute so gather some pertinent data before the argument starts. Surveys, statistics, quotes from relevant people and results are useful arguments to deploy in support of your case.
3. Ask questions. If you can ask the right questions you can stay in control of the discussion and make your opponent scramble for answers. You can ask questions that challenge his point, ‘What evidence do you have for that claim?’ You can ask hypothetical questions that extrapolate a trend and give your opponent a difficulty, ‘What would happen if every nation did that?’ Another useful type of question is one that calmly provokes your foe, ‘What is about this that makes you so angry?’
4. Use logic. Show how one idea follows another. Build your case and use logic to undermine your opponent.
5. Appeal to higher values. As well as logic you can use a little emotion by appealing to worthy motives that are hard to disagree with, ‘Shouldn’t we all be working to make the world better and safer for our children?’
6. Listen carefully. Many people are so focused on what they are going to say that they ignore their opponent and assume his arguments. It is better to listen carefully. You will observe weaknesses and flaws in his position and sometimes you will hear something new and informative!
7. Be prepared to concede a good point. Don’t argue every point for the sake of it. If your adversary makes a valid point then agree but outweigh it with a different argument. This makes you looked reasonable. ‘I agree with you that prison does not reform prisoners. That is generally true but prison still acts effectively as a deterrent and a punishment.’
8. Study your opponent. Know their strengths, weaknesses, beliefs and values. You can appeal to their higher values. You can exploit their weaknesses by turning their arguments back on them.
9. Look for a win-win. Be open-minded to a compromise position that accommodates your main points and some of your opponent’s. You cannot both win in a boxing match but you can both win in a negotiation.

Don’t:

1. Get personal. Direct attacks on your opponent’s lifestyle, integrity or honesty should be avoided. Attack the issue not the person. If the other party attacks you then you can take the high ground e.g.’ I am surprised at you making personal attacks like that. I think it would be better if we stuck to the main issue here rather than maligning people.’
2. Get distracted. Your opponent may try to throw you off the scent by introducing new and extraneous themes. You must be firm. ‘That is an entirely different issue which I am happy to discuss later. For the moment let’s deal with the major issue at hand.’
3. Water down your strong arguments with weak ones. If you have three strong points and two weaker ones then it is probably best to just focus on the strong. Make your points convincingly and ask for agreement. If you carry on and use the weaker arguments then your opponent can rebut them and make your overall case look weaker.

Low, sneaky ways that some people use to win arguments:

1. Use punchy one-liners. You can sometimes throw your opponent out of his stride by interjecting a confident, concise cliché. Here are some good ones:
   • That begs the question.
   • That is beside the point.
   • You’re being defensive.
   • Don’t compare apples and oranges.
   • What are your parameters?
2. Ridicule and humiliate your opponent. This can be very effective in front of an audience but will never win over the opponent himself.
3. Deliberately provoke your adversary. Find something that makes them angry and keep wheedling away on this point until they lose their temper and so the argument.
4. Distract. Throw in diversions which deflect the other person from their main point.
5. Exaggerate your opponent’s position. Take it way beyond its intended level and then show how ridiculous and unreasonable the exaggerated position is.
6. Contradict confidently. Vigorously denounce each of your opponent’s arguments as fallacious but just select one or two that you can defeat to prove the point. Then assume that you have won.

Remember that an argument between two people is very different from a debate in front of an audience. In the first you are trying to win over the other person so look for ways of building consensus and do not be belligerent in making your points. In front of an audience you can use all sorts of theatrical and rhetorical devices to bolster your case and belittle your adversary. In these circumstances humour is a highly effective tool so prepare some clever lines in advance.

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-win-arguments-dos-donts-and-sneaky-tactics.html

Tipping my hat to you all!

Holmes

NOTE TO:  Readers, Critics, Scoundrels and the Peanut Gallery: As this is not one of my original writings, feel free to share it in whole including citations and links.