http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm

+----------------------------------------------+
| SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO  |
| WIN AN ARGUMENT                              |
|                                              |
| Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a       |
| brilliant German philosopher. These 38       |
| Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of     |
| Controversy", first translated into English  |
| and published in 1896.                       |
|                                              |
| Schopenhauer's 38 ways to win an argument    |
| are:                                         |
|                                              |
|  1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond |
|     its natural limits; exaggerate it. The   |
|     more general your opponent's statement   |
|     becomes, the more objections you can     |
|     find against it. The more restricted and |
|     narrow his or her propositions remain,   |
|     the easier they are to defend by him or  |
|     her.                                     |
|  2. Use different meanings of your           |
|     opponent's words to refute his or her    |
|     argument.                                |
|  3. Ignore your opponent's proposition,      |
|     which was intended to refer to a         |
|     particular thing. Rather, understand it  |
|     in some quite different sense, and then  |
|     refute it. Attack something different    |
|     than that which was asserted.            |
|  4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent  |
|     till the end. Mingle your premises here  |
|     and there in your talk. Get your         |
|     opponent to agree to them in no definite |
|     order. By this circuitious route you     |
|     conceal your game until you have         |
|     obtained all the admissions that are     |
|     necessary to reach your goal.            |
|  5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him. |
|     If the opponent refuses to accept your   |
|     premises, use his own premises to your   |
|     advantage.                               |
|  6. Another plan is to confuse the issue by  |
|     changing your opponent's words or what   |
|     he or she seeks to prove.                |
|  7. State your proposition and show the      |
|     truth of it by asking the opponent many  |
|     questions. By asking many wide-reaching  |
|     questions at once, you may hide what you |
|     want to get admitted. Then you quickly   |
|     propound the argument resulting from the |
|     opponent's admissions.                   |
|  8. Make your opponent angry. An angry       |
|     person is less capable of using          |
|     judgement or perceiving where his or her |
|     advantage lies.                          |
|  9. Use your opponent's answers to your      |
|     questions to reach different or even     |
|     opposite conclusions.                    |
| 10. If your opponent answers all your        |
|     questions negatively and refuses to      |
|     grant any points, ask him or her to      |
|     concede the opposite of your premises.   |
|     This may confuse the opponent as to      |
|     which point you actually seek them to    |
|     concede.                                 |
| 11. If the opponent grants you the truth of  |
|     some of your premises, refrain from      |
|     asking him or her to agree to your       |
|     conclusion. Later, introduce your        |
|     conclusion as a settled and admitted     |
|     fact. Your opponent may come to believe  |
|     that your conclusion was admitted.       |
| 12. If the argument turns upon general ideas |
|     with no particular names, you must use   |
|     language or a metaphor that is favorable |
|     in your proposition.                     |
| 13. To make your opponent accept a           |
|     proposition, you must give him or her an |
|     opposite, counter-proposition as well.   |
|     If the contrast is glaring, the opponent |
|     will accept your proposition to avoid    |
|     being paradoxical.                       |
| 14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she |
|     has answered several of your questions   |
|     without the answers turning out in favor |
|     of your conclusion, advance your         |
|     conclusion triumphantly, even if it does |
|     not follow. If your opponent is shy or   |
|     stupid, and you yourself possess a great |
|     deal of impudence and a good voice, the  |
|     trick may easily succeed.                |
| 15. If you wish to advance a proposition     |
|     that is difficult to prove, put it aside |
|     for the moment. Instead, submit for your |
|     opponent's acceptance or rejection some  |
|     true poposition, as thoug you wished to  |
|     draw your proof from it. Should the      |
|     opponent reject it because he or she     |
|     suspects a trick, you can obtain your    |
|     triumph by showing how absurd the        |
|     opponent is to reject a true             |
|     proposition. Should the opponent accept  |
|     it, you now have reason on your own for  |
|     the moment. You can either try to prove  |
|     your original proposition or maintain    |
|     that your original proposition is proved |
|     by what the opponent accepted. For this, |
|     an extreme degree of impudence is        |
|     required.                                |
| 16. When your opponent puts forth a          |
|     proposition, find it inconsistent with   |
|     his or her other statements, beliefs,    |
|     actions, or lack of action.              |
| 17. If your opponent presses you with a      |
|     counter proof, you will often be able to |
|     save yourself by advancing some subtle   |
|     distinction. Try to find a second        |
|     meaning or an ambiguous sense for your   |
|     opponent's idea.                         |
| 18. If your opponent has taken up a line of  |
|     argument that will end in your defeat,   |
|     you must not allow him or her to carry   |
|     it to its conclusion. Interrupt the      |
|     dispute, break it off altogether, or     |
|     lead the opponent to a different         |
|     subject.                                 |
| 19. Should your opponent expressly challenge |
|     you to produce any objection to some     |
|     definite point in his or her argument,   |
|     and you have nothing much to say, try to |
|     make the argument less specific.         |
| 20. If your opponent has admitted to all or  |
|     most of your premises, do not ask him or |
|     her directly to accept your conclusion.  |
|     Rather draw the conclusion yourself as   |
|     if it too had been admitted.             |
| 21. When your opponent uses an argument that |
|     is superficial, refute it by setting     |
|     forth its superficial character. But it  |
|     is better to meet the opponent with a    |
|     counter argument that is just as         |
|     superficial, and so dispose of him or    |
|     her. For it is with victory that your    |
|     are concerned, and not with truth.       |
| 22. If your opponent asks you to admit       |
|     something from which the point in        |
|     dispute will immediately follow, you     |
|     must refuse to do so, declaring that it  |
|     begs the question.                       |
| 23. Contradiction and contention irritate a  |
|     person into exaggerating his or          |
|     her statements. By contractiong your     |
|     opponent you may drive him or her into   |
|     extending the statement beyond its       |
|     natural limit. When you then contradict  |
|     the exaggerated form of it, you look as  |
|     though you had refuted the orginal       |
|     statement your opponent tries to extend  |
|     your own statement further than you      |
|     intended, redefine your statement's      |
|     limits.                                  |
| 24. This trick consists in stating a false   |
|     syllogism. Your opponent makes a         |
|     proposition and by false inference and   |
|     distortion of his or her ideas you force |
|     from the proposition other propositions  |
|     that are not intended and that appear    |
|     absurd. It then appears the opponent's   |
|     proposition gave rise to these           |
|     inconsistencies, and so appears to be    |
|     indirectly refuted.                      |
| 25. If your opponent is making a             |
|     generalization, find an instance to the  |
|     contrary. Only one valid contradiciton   |
|     is needed to overthrow the opponent's    |
|     proposition.                             |
| 26. A brilliant move is to turn the tables   |
|     and use your opponent's arguments        |
|     against him or herself.                  |
| 27. Should your opponent surprise you by     |
|     becoming particularly angry at an        |
|     argument, you must urge it with all the  |
|     more zeal. Not only will this make the   |
|     opponent angry, it may be presumed that  |
|     you put your finger on the weak side of  |
|     his or her case, and that the opponent   |
|     is more open to attack on this point     |
|     than you expected.                       |
| 28. This trick is chiefly practicable in a   |
|     dispute if there is an audience who is   |
|     not an expert on the subject. You make   |
|     an invalid objection to your opponent    |
|     who seems to be defeated in the eyes of  |
|     the audience. This strategy is           |
|     particularly effective if your objection |
|     makes the opponent look ridiculous or if |
|     the audience laughs. If the opponent     |
|     must make a long, complicated            |
|     explanation to correct you, the audience |
|     will not be disposed to listen.          |
| 29. If you find that you are being beaten,   |
|     you can create a diversion that is, you  |
|     can suddenly begin to talk of something  |
|     else, as though it had bearing on the    |
|     matter in dispose. This may be done      |
|     without presumption if the diversion has |
|     some general bearing on the matter.      |
| 30. Make an appeal to authority rather than  |
|     reason. If your opponent respects an     |
|     authority or an expert, quote that       |
|     authority to further your case. If       |
|     needed, quote what the authority said in |
|     some other sense or circumstance.        |
|     Authorities that your opponent fails to  |
|     understand are those which he or she     |
|     generally admires the most. You may      |
|     also, should it be necessary, not only   |
|     twist your authorities, but actually     |
|     falsify them, or quote something that    |
|     you have invented entirely yourself.     |
| 31. If you know that you have no reply to an |
|     argument that your opponent advances,    |
|     you may, by a fine stroke of irony,      |
|     declare yourself to be an incompetent    |
|     judge.                                   |
| 32. A quick way of getting rid of an         |
|     opponent's assertion, or throwing        |
|     suspicion on it, is by putting it into   |
|     some odious category.                    |
| 33. You admit your opponent's premises but   |
|     deny the conclusion.                     |
| 34. When you state a question or an          |
|     argument, and your opponent gives you no |
|     direct answer, or evades it with a       |
|     counter question, or tries to change the |
|     subject, it is a sure sign you have      |
|     touched a weak spot, sometimes without   |
|     knowing it. You have as it were, reduced |
|     the opponent to silence. You must,       |
|     therefore, urge the point all the more,  |
|     and not let your opponent evade it, even |
|     when you do not know where the weakness  |
|     that you have hit upon really lies.      |
| 35. This trick makes all unnecessary if it   |
|     works. Instead of working on an          |
|     opponent's intellect, work on his or her |
|     motive. If you succeed in making your    |
|     opponent's opinion, should it prove      |
|     true, seem distinctly to his or her own  |
|     interest, the opponenent will drop it    |
|     like a hot potato.                       |
| 36. You may also puzzle and bewilder your    |
|     opponent by mere bombast. If the         |
|     opponent is weak or does not wish to     |
|     appear as ife he or she has no idea what |
|     you are talking about, you can easily    |
|     impose upon him or her some argument     |
|     that sounds very deep or learned, or     |
|     that sounds indisputable.                |
| 37. Should your opponent be in the right     |
|     but, luckily for you, choose a faulty    |
|     proof, you can easily refute it and then |
|     claim that you have refuted the whole    |
|     position. This is the way which bad      |
|     advocates lose a good case. If no        |
|     accurate proof occurs to the opponent or |
|     the bystanders, you have won the day.    |
| 38. A last trick is to become personal,      |
|     insulting and rude as soon as you        |
|     perceive that your opponent has the      |
|     upper hand. In becoming personal you     |
|     leave the subject altogether, and turn   |
|     your attack on the person by remarks of  |
|     an offensive and spiteful character.     |
|     This is a very popular trick, because    |
|     everyone is able to carry it into        |
|     effect.                                  |
|                                              |
| (abstracted from the book:Numerical Lists    |
| You Never Knew or Once Knew and Probably     |
| Forget, by: John Boswell and Dan Starer)     |
|                                              |
|                                              |
+----------------------------------------------+