Throughout history, most philosophers have cared about a few key things, truth, logic, and open inquiry. But they have failed to provide what we really want to know. How do we dominate our opponents in a debate, making them look like a fool and us really, really clever? For that matter, how do we do this even if they are right and we are wrong?
After all, truth can be dry, boring, and involve tedious, complex reasoning steps. Whereas destroying someone in an argument is deeply exciting and will make everyone look at us and go, what a smart and handsome man, I wish my boyfriend were like him, before giving us a kiss on the lips and telling us how irresistibly attractive we are because of our humongous swollen brains. Well, luckily, Schopenhauer has got your back. In his brilliantly sarcastic essay, On the Art of Being Right, he outlines exactly how you can use a myriad of underhanded and logically spurious techniques in order to gain the upper hand in any argument, even if you don't have a leg to stand on. And as you watch this video, you'll notice you don't have to go very far to see these models in action.
Littered across the internet are these brave warriors of sophistry. Simply choose your preferred guru and let them guide you into the wonderful world of argumentative performance, using Schopenhauer's Handbook as your definitive text. Get ready to learn how politicians can convince you of something that you know is false, why logic barely matters in most debates, and so much more.
So throw out your old dusty critical thinking books and let's learn how to destroy people with facts and logic without using either. 1. So what you're saying is, the trouble with lots of debates is there's often more than one reasonable perspective on an issue. And this is a massive hurdle. If people start to think that your opponent's position is plausible or even just understandable, then there is every chance they will start to listen to them.
And we can't have that. Listening might lead to comprehension, which might lead to persuasion. At this point, the debate is lost and our ego is tossed in the bin.
Fortunately, Schopenhauer says that we can nip this nascent threat in the bud through the careful use of exaggeration. Every time your opponent puts forward a position, simply say, so what you're saying is, and then fill in the blank with the most outlandish interpretation of their words you can possibly imagine. So if I were to argue that freedom of speech is a good general principle in any liberal society, you can respond by saying, oh, so you think we should be able to shout bomb in a crowded airport. That is ridiculous. You can clearly see the move being made here.
We have taken my statement that freedom of speech should be highly valued and reinterpreted free speech to mean a total lack of restrictions on any speech, rather than leaving room for a more moderate position that would admit of certain caveats. There are a number of ways you can achieve this exaggeration. You can pretend that in affirming a particular case of something your opponent has actually agreed to a much more general principle. So in the above example, I could put on my best faux-outraged face and say, well, I never.
This guy wants to control what people can say and do. When actually, their argument simply points out that in the particular case of yelling bomb at an airport, we might want to make an exception to the general rule of not policing speech. We can also interpret every use of a word with some inherent vagueness, in the most bizarre and ridiculous way possible. So if they say bad, we will pretend they have said equivalence to the devil himself. And if they say...
good, we will interpret that as completely beyond reproach, as if it is the wellspring of morality. This ensures that their true point will be completely obscured, with only an implausible straw man left in its place. And that sets us up perfectly for our next move.
If you want to help me make more videos like this, then please consider subscribing to either my channel, my email list, or my Patreon. The links are in the description. 2. What I'm saying is To continue our misrepresentative gambit, we can bolster our own arguments by essentially splitting them in two. We will have one very careful, circumspect, rational, and almost truistic position, and another one which is much looser but can also do a lot more for us.
Whenever we're not being actively criticised, we can assert the looser position and then retreat back into our stronger one if anyone raises an objection. If I wanted to argue for the abolition of puppies, I would start by saying something really sensible, like certain types of large dog can be very dangerous. Then, when my opponent has taken their eye off the ball, I can start talking about banning puppies more openly.
But when they regain focus and point out that my position is ridiculous, I can say, Pah, get a load of this guy. He doesn't think that dogs can be dangerous. This is known as a Mott and Bailey argument, or a Mott and Bailey fallacy if you're talking to someone who cares about logical principles.
It is perfect when you want to smuggle in a position without anyone noticing the sleight of hand manoeuvre going on. If you're really good at this, then you can convince people of whatever you like. framing the entire discussion as if it follows from an obvious truism.
Eventually, people may become so confused that they'll start to think your extreme suggestions are simple entailments of your more minimal position. So someone will hear certain types of dog are dangerous and immediately think this means we have to eliminate all puppies without stopping to consider but whether that actually follows from their original statement. The ideas will become associatively welded to one another.
This means we'll be able to bypass the logical, reasonable part of someone's mind and get great to the good stuff. The stuff that is more willing to hang on our every word unthinkingly. If you use this strategy and the previous one together successfully, it becomes basically impossible to lose an argument. As far as your viewers or listeners or audience is concerned, you are a very reasonable person holding a perfectly obvious position.
whereas your opponent is making some plainly ridiculous claim they cannot possibly defend. It's a way of poisoning the well before you even really get started. Anyone watching will begin from the position that you are probably right, and then you just have to lampoon the straw version of your opponent's argument that you've constructed to hammer home the message. It basically does itself. But of course, we're just getting started.
Now we have to move on to the business of active argumentation and how to come out on top, even when you really shouldn't. 3. the endless assault of questions. In another one of my videos, we went through the careful way that Socratic questioning can be used to clarify what someone says in a discussion, and how it can facilitate good faith argumentation, where both you and your interlocutor can come to a mutual understanding of one another's points in order to learn something new and hopefully get closer to the truth. But who cares about that?
Now we must forget Socrates and employ questions in an entirely different way. One that aims to baffle and confuse, rather than illuminate. We must keep our opponents constantly on their toes with questions that are either irrelevant to their overall point or simply lead them in the direction we want them to go. So, if you're representing the pro-puppy league and I am still on my puppy annihilation campaign, I might send a merciless barrage of questions your way.
They might range from ones that imply something is nebulously untoward about your character. Why is it exactly that you have such a perverse affection for canines, Mr. Jones? To ones that are evidently loaded.
So how do you account for the fact that dogs have consistently been used as weapons of war throughout history? To ones that are simply beside the point? Is it not true, Mr. Jones, that you were recently seen in the company of not dogs, but cats?
Our aim here is not to use questions to understand, but to undermine. Even the most intelligent people can be reduced to stuttering and silence if you throw enough varied inquisitions at them in quick succession. You're essentially forcing their minds to continuously jump from issue to issue, never letting them rest long enough so that they can form a coherent thought.
It goes without saying that we should only pay attention to the answers of these questions when it suits us. So if they give a perfectly sensible response, we should just ignore them, refusing to even acknowledge it. But obviously, if they slip up, giving an answer that seems unsatisfactory or is confusing or contradicts something they said earlier in the debate, even slightly, then we can pounce upon that. We triumphantly cry.
Upon closer inspection your whole position falls apart. For the rest of the encounter we should not let them forget this, coming back to it whenever we get the sense they're a bit too comfortable. Best of all would be if we get them to make a series of flawed or confusing or contradictory answers in quick succession as this is sure to provoke a laugh from anyone watching. This is all to give the impression that your opponent does not even know what they are talking about, despite the fact they might be very knowledgeable.
Some of the best types of questions to provoke this sort of reply are ones that contain within them a presupposition that the debater does not agree with. So I could ask, but given that puppies are evil, why shouldn't we get rid of them? Then not only does the speaker have to answer the question, they are also bound to want to dispel this presupposition or else they'll be seen as implicitly endorsing it.
And of course, my opponents would not want to concede the idea that puppies are evil. However. To anyone watching, it just looks like someone's giving a long, convoluted response to a downright simple question. This would leave the impression that we are a superior intellect, easily able to trip our opponents up with elementary questions about puppies. Of course, this is even easier if you prime your audience to feel like you must be fundamentally in the right.
And this is where Schopenhauer's next observation enters the arena. 4. Control the metaphors A lot of us like to go around pretending that we are very rational. But in recent years, we've started to discover just how many extra logical factors influence our judgments and decisions. And just one of these is the power that framing, metaphors, and labels have on our thoughts. For instance, if the losses in a situation are emphasized more than the gains, then it makes people more risk averse, even if the actual facts have not changed at all.
But this cognitive bias presents a gleeful opportunity for the unscrupulous debater who cares nothing for truth and simply wants victory. The prospect of controlling the frame of the discussion. This can be done in a number of ways.
First, we give our position a name that is packed as full as possible with positive connotations. So we won't call our worldview puppy nihilism, but instead something like mauling protectionism. And this will stretch to the metaphors we use.
We won't paint ourselves as joyously arguing for the annihilation of innocent puppies, but instead we'll emphasise all of the protective elements of our position. We will express real sympathy for the puppies. We don't want to hurt them, we'll say. We just recognise that this is a sad necessity of protecting people from harmful guard dogs.
We will proclaim that those who oppose us are not doing so out of some affection for puppies. They just don't have the guts to do what must be done. We won't call them puppy lovers, but instead something more nefarious like Puppy Fanatics or The Puppy League. Of course, the particular context will dictate which metaphors it makes sense to use.
If we want to appeal to those who consider themselves supremely rational, then we will emphasise the hysterical nature of caring so deeply about puppies. We'll use terms like puppy worshippers and pupsteria. If we want to make it seem like our opponents are out of touch, then we can talk about those fortunate enough to have the time to care about puppies. If we want people to view our opponents as just evil, then we can emphasise what we say are the downsides of puppies and then say that they act actively support that. Then the puppy supporter becomes a mauling enthusiast or a dog poo lover.
The possibilities stretch as far as your logical conscience is willing to accommodate. And this does not just end at controlling the terms used in a debate. It can stretch to the way that we talk about the power dynamics at play.
In one situation, we can argue that we're only saying what everyone else is thinking, and it's only because the powers that be prevent it that people aren't speaking out more against puppies. Alternatively, if we want to appeal to people that consider themselves intelligent and moderate, then we can say that really this is the position of the thinking man. We are the few who are enlightened enough to stand up for killing puppies when most are still dreaming of unrealistic scenarios of humans and puppies living in harmony. But you and I, we've thought about it. We know the truth.
We could also associate the puppies or their supporters with a group of people maligned by our audience. Which, in different scenarios, might be the rich, or the poor, or certain foreign nations, as I said, the possibilities are endless. None of this directly argues for our position, or adds a single logical reason to believe in it.
Because it doesn't have to, it's playing on people's identities. Very few people want to be seen as hysterical or unthinking, so the more we keep implying that our opponents must be like that, the less people want to take up the cause of the puppies. We're then controlling not just the debate, but the way the debate is perceived. If we are able to frame the whole issue in our favour, either by presenting ourselves as the sensible voice of reason fending off some fringe lunatics, or as a small independent group of brave truth-tellers revealing hidden secrets, then a great many people who don't know anything about the questions involved will probably accept this presentation and think, ah well, the anti-maulers do seem to be the rational ones here, and they'll be much more likely to unthinkingly parrot our position. When done skilfully, this is a proper masterstroke for the manipulative debater.
as it allows them to pre-wait this discussion and any further discussions in their favour, which is quickly becoming a consistent theme of the video. And in a similar vein, we'll now move on to a devious type of trap to lay for our unsuspecting opponent, one that can actually turn their superior knowledge against them. 5. The strength of common sense How many times have you heard someone defend a position by saying, well, it's just common sense, isn't it? Of course, strictly speaking, this doesn't support anything. Common sense is a pretty fallible way of establishing whether something is correct.
If we had clung desperately to our common sense since 3000 BC, then we would arguably still believe that the sun god Ra fought monsters over the course of the night to ensure that he rose again the next morning. After all, how else would the sun keep coming back? It's just common sense.
This is where Schopenhauer's next dastardly play comes in. He points out that one of the best ways to make an informed opponent seem foolish is to say something wrong but that appears to be common sense. and then let them try and refute it, probably using some long explanation that draws on their particular expertise.
You can imagine this happening in a historical debate about geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything else orbits it. At least in theory, the geocentrist could say, look, we seem to stay still, don't we? And the sun seems to move.
No doubt a crowd of non-astronomous 16th century onlookers would be pretty satisfied with this line of reasoning. It appeals to common sense. Of course, the actual historical renaissance position of geocentrism was much more sophisticated than this. I don't want to misrepresent that.
After this, Copernicus has to take the stand and carefully explain that there are actually subtle contradictions in the best geocentric models of the solar system, and that if you move to a more complex heliocentric model, then this clears some of them up. Then, a century later, Kepler would have to interject and say that our best heliocentric models actually make slightly more accurate predictions of planetary movements than our best geocentric ones. Sure, they are technically, you know, Correct.
But the very length of their explanation would probably cause many listeners to go, look how hard they have to work to deny the basic facts of the matter. The sun revolves around the earth. Get over it.
It's just common sense. This reflects the observations of behavioural economist Daniel Kahneman, that we often prefer a simple explanation to one that is complicated, but ultimately closer to the truth. It is often a much better way of managing our mental resources.
If reality is too complex to understand at a glance, then unless the issue is of life-changing import, we may as well just move on in ignorance. But for the dishonest debater, this opens up a great opportunity to get the upper hand by making sure their position is not necessarily correct, but definitely seems simpler than their opponent's. This will allow that ever-helpful common-sense advantage to kick in, and you'll have an inherent head start in any confrontation with someone arguing something more complicated. And the great thing about your opponent embarking on a lengthy explanation of a complex point is that you can do the following to great effect. 6. Interrupt Imagine that I'm giving an in-depth presentation of quite a delicate argument.
Perhaps I am arguing that despite Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, there are still multiple helpful uses for second order logic. This would take quite a long time and require several reasoning steps that some people might question, especially if they're not presented in a sufficiently nuanced way. So what would make turning this difficult task into a near impossible one? Well, interrupting me every few seconds would probably do the trick. Then I would lose my place multiple times and be much more likely to put something clumsily, allowing for my points to become confused or garbled.
Then I will leave the impression on anyone present that I'm not confident in my argument or that I do not sufficiently understand it. It will seem like you are showing me up as you forensically analyse my argument in real time as I'm giving it. Of course, in reality, all you're doing is not letting me get a word in edgeways, but that's besides the point. As I said at the beginning, we are not concerned with good faith, truth, logic, or validity.
We are concerned with winning, dominating, and destruction. And for all its philosophical flaws, this strategy can leave the strong impression of victory. This interruption tactic is especially important to do if your opponent looks like they have an argument that will actually end up refuting your position.
Then you are in a race to interrupt them before they can reach their dreaded QED. You see this an awful lot in interview programs. In an effort to catch out their subjects, the interviewer will refuse to let them finish their point, and instead insist on taking issue with every step of the argument as it progresses.
I think people are luckily starting to see through this trick more often, but it's still incredibly common. And if you plan to be a disingenuous arguer, it is an invaluable tool in your arsenal. And it might also have the rather nifty side effect. 7. Make your opponent angry The trouble with calm people is that a lot of the time they're pretty reasonable. They are often able to formulate their arguments both intelligently and convincingly.
And this is really annoying if your overall goal is just to trick people into agreeing with you. So if our opponent is on the verge of making some sense, we must nip that in the bud immediately by making them as angry as humanly possible. When someone is angry, it's much harder for them to refute your arguments point by point.
They are much more likely to drift off topic, or become incoherent, or just make a fool of themselves. At this point, you can pretty much ignore anything they've said so far and simply point at them and say, goodness me, how can I be expected to debate with such a person? After the discussion, people will be talking about how calm and collected you were in the face of this clearly unhinged adversary, despite the fact that you set out to get under their skin in the first place.
Of course, how you make this person angry is contextual and also entirely up to you. You might launch a series of unjustified ad hominem attacks and hope that they take the bait. Maybe your constant interruptions will be sufficient to make them snap.
Perhaps you can just speak in a supremely derisive tone of voice, condescension dripping from your every passing word until they find your very presence insulting. I'll leave you to work out the details, but the main objective is to be a complete wind-up merchant. Once your opponent is frothing at the mouth, they'll be unable to challenge your position, meaning that you win by default.
Sure, we've missed out on the potential to have our views challenged and made someone look like an idiot for no reason. But we won. And that's the important thing.
Then again, what's the point in winning if we don't get across the further idea that we are beings of unparalleled intellect? Brain box titans straddling the channel through which lesser minds paddle in their silly little boats. Well, luckily, our next point should clear this up nicely.
Or, to quote W.C. Fields, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit. But in this case, we must carefully construct our bullshit, dress it up in the finery of academic language and technical terminology. so that to the uninformed observer it looks like a colossus of intellectual capability, but on closer inspection it's just a shop mannequin in a cheap powdered wig.
This is a way of achieving the aesthetics and authority of intellectualism without having to do any of that messy thinking or learning. To the untrained eye, we will appear exactly like any other incredibly clever person. After all, we've got the lingo down, we hold ourselves with authority, we speak with assured confidence.
At first glance, anyone would take us to be an expert on whatever we are speculating about. According to his memoir, the reformed conman Frank Abanel Jr. was able to pass as a pilot, a doctor, and even an FBI agent, simply by means of his own unflappability and by dressing the part. And these identities are all much easier to disprove than a nebulous claim of expertise or authority, so we'll probably have a much easier time than Frank did.
Of course, there will always be some people who see through the disguise, but they will be drowned out by the sheer number of onlookers starstruck by your extensive vocabulary and nice tweed jacket. Someone can even fall into this trope without realising it. One of the reasons I say pretty much once every video that I am not some grand authority and that you should draw your own conclusions is that the mixture of my posh accent, eccentric demeanour and way of writing might trick you into thinking that I am anything more than just some guy with a few books, and I would be eager to disabuse you of any such notion. But if you do want to put on the thrills and petticoats of the intelligentsia, employing helpful servings of word salad along the way, then it might just be your shortcuts to winning an argument. even if you haven't done five minutes of research.
But now, some final decorations on the cake. 9. Some miscellaneous pointers Some of Schopenhauer's tips and tricks can't be neatly grouped together like I have done for previous sections. So here's a selection of some of his greatest uncategorized hits. Consider using personal insults if you're backed into a corner.
This will force your opponents to try to defend their character, which will then derail the discussion. If you refute someone's particular argument, then claim that the conclusion of that argument is therefore false. disallowing them to have any further argument in its favour.
If their position has never been tested, state that it's good in theory but just would not work in practice. If pressed, avoid elaborating why. If you have nothing to say to directly challenge your opponent, simply point to some general but irrelevant concern, like how everyone is wrong sometimes or that nothing is certain. Conflate terms that have no business being conflated.
Make your opponents choose between two extremes, obscuring any reasonable middle ground. Begin an argument with Everyone knows that, so that people understand where they should stand on the issue. If you're close to being defeated, just suddenly change the subject.
Above all, if you want to be a successful dishonest arguer, you must learn how to never concede except on the most minor points. Anytime you are forced to give something up, simply pretend that you haven't later in the argument, and ignore what you said before. Each time it appears you've lost some dialectical territory, launch an immediate counterattack to reclaim it, or just assume it again when your opponent's not looking.
Refuse to engage with the substance of your interlocutors'arguments and employ every tactic of exaggeration, obfuscation and distortion in your power to make them seem ridiculous. Nothing is off the table. No principle should hold you back from an ad hominem attack or a blatant misrepresentation.
Cast logic out the window. It is no longer your master. Your only guiding light is the optics of what you're doing. How it will be seen by others, whether they'll think you have won the debate.
Don't see conversation as a potential search for truth, but rather a competitive sparring match where the object is to humiliate rather than construct or communicate. And of course, don't admit to anyone that this is what you're doing. But say that we don't want to do any of this.
Say we are exactly the kind of idealistic, truth-loving philosophers that a deceptive debater would treat with derision and scorn. What can we take away from Schopenhauer's biting satire on how discourse tends to function? 10. The Lessons of Deceit Right, I'm going to remove my slightly sardonic, intensely sarcastic hat, and let's assume that what you and I are interested in is actually the truth. We ideally want good faith debate to proceed between two respectful and open-minded participants so that the truth can be converged upon provided we have all of the relevant information.
Well, on the one hand, if you don't mind playing their game, it offers a series of rhetorical tricks you could use if you're ever confronted with an opponent who is clearly interested in stooping to that level. As Schopenhauer says, I think seriously. In the argumentative arena, in practice, it is not enough to merely be right. You must also be able to swat away all of the limbically persuasive but logically fallacious objections you will encounter. But even if you're not planning to dive into the wonderful and terrifying world of public debate, Schopenhauer's work is fantastic for inoculating us against the kind of argumentative moves people make that are merely sophistic tricks that distract us from the real issue at hand.
It lets you know whether you're watching someone who genuinely wants to understand a topic or someone who just wants to appear. Right. Some anarchist philosophers interpret Machiavelli's The Prince as a warning about all the ways leaders can seize and maintain power that are deadly efficient but morally abhorrent.
And I think we can view Schopenhauer's sarcastic essay in a similar way. It is showing us the tricks of the trade used by bad faith actors who care less about truth or logic and more about simply getting their idea shoved into your skull and who are willing to use any means necessary to do so. And in our internet age where anyone can post any opinion on any topic, the skill of separating education from indoctrination is vital. for staying sane. To paraphrase the opening pages of Schopenhauer's essay, the issue of objective truth is inexpedient if your only aim is to change someone's mind or to win at any cost.
And you would be surprised at just how often people trade in honesty, logic and consistency for a slim shot at glory. Of course, a much more important skill than knowing how to deceive someone into thinking that you're correct is how to actually critically analyse both someone else's views and your own. And click here to watch my video on that very topic. and stick around for more on thinking to improve your life.