For the posts that I get good feedback on:
I do a point by point refutation.
Then I mercilessly delete it all (about 70% of my posts include this step, and half the time it doesn't get beyond it
*).
I'll assume my opponent is
not stupid, but has made a mistake.
I'll attempt to work out what the mistake is.
Then I need a good way of explaining the mistake I think they are making and why it is a mistake - usually requiring an example where the mistake leads to a conclusion we both agree is absurd.
Then I'll reconstruct the post, using my most salient ideas from the first post that deal with the mistake at hand - and add in any answers to direct questions/challenges.
Then I refute everything I just wrote. I edit anything that I refuted, or delete the whole section if I was thorough enough.
Leave your opponent with a graceful exit. Rather than, "Admit you were wrong, or be considered a stubborn fool." I try and aim for "It seems as though you are in error on this point, do you agree or is there something I have missed?"
I find people are more inclined to say "Oops, yes, you're right, my mistake." in those cases - which is always helpful to advance a discussion.
There are basically two kinds of argument prevalent here:
The
Fisk:
quote:
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form.
and a more broad criticism of the central thesis of the opponent.
Whichever one (or combination thereof) is best is contextual and subjective, but I can only say that the best posts are the ones where it is two people that disagree with one another working together to figure things out. The best way to get to that position is for at least one person to really try and get there and for that person to coax or otherwise encourage their opponent to working with them. If you need to have a 'win' under your belt then this 'tactic' has the advantage of making your opponent look bad for not cooperating.
One technique I find useful is to try and avoid giving your opponent that prickly fear one feels when one realizes you've cocked up which can result in any number of strange reactions. So if someone has a religious attachment to the subject for example, and if I feel that a fear of losing faith might be a factor in play - I might reassure my fellow debater that they are not being forced to choose between accepting my point and believing in God (often it's more complex, and the fear is actually the fear of the opponent springing a 'trap' or something similar).
I won't mention specific names, as others have done (and thanks to those that gave me a shout out), but some of the Greatest posts contain the Least quotes and a nice number of links (not too many!) with maybe a relevant picture. But most posts are the back and forth dialogue style around here, and it is in the context of a continuing dialogue that I think the 'working together' paradigm pays off.
Oh - and always try and look at the subtitle. Sometimes a theme will emerge that makes for a great subtitle which in itself can inspire creating a stronger rhetorical narrative. Sometimes though, you can tend to end up just typing a literal description of your post, which is a little stupid.
The Greeks
Sometimes using headers can make your post look more appealing and encourage people to read it and helps organise thoughts too.
Rhetoric has been considered an art form, it is composed of
quote:
ethos: how the character and credibility of a speaker can influence an audience to consider him/her to be believable.
By developing a history of good character and credibility by arguing in good faith and avoid personal attacks, one gains a certain perceived ethos. It doesn't make you more right, but it might make you more persuasive.
quote:
pathos: the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment.
Clumsily done, this can have mixed effect (although Fox News is quite persuasive I'm told).
quote:
logos: the use of reasoning, either inductive or deductive, to construct an argument.
* The theory here is that you often think of the best retorts twenty minutes after the initial encounter. By deleting everything, you get to start again with a bit more experience thinking about the counter arguments you want to raise and have a better chance of finding a witty and stylish comeback.
™ Version 4.2
