38 Ways to Win When You are Defeated By Arthur Schopenhauer as Shared In the Book "The Art Of Always Being Right"
BOOK HIGHLIGHTS
14 min read
... Or how not to let your opponents win when you know that you are right.
🌞 Introduction
Arthur Schopenhauer writes that we often begin debates with the conviction of being right but later get insecure in that conviction due to sound arguments shared by our opponent, only to discover that we were right after all.
The truth is that the art of controversy is the art of disputing in such a way as to hold our own, even when we’re wrong! Of course, we should always aim to discover the truth in every debate we’re involved in, however, Schopenhauer argues that people are rarely honourable - he views them as egotistical and vain, which doesn't allow them to accept that their position is wrong and their adversary’s right. That means that even if we are correct in what we’re saying but have weak arguments to support it, an opponent, who is wrong but capable of forming stronger arguments than us, can easily win the debate.
The study of dialectic is to show how we may defend ourselves against any kind of attack and/or how we may attack another person’s statement without contradicting ourselves. However, the discovery of the objective truth should be separated from the art of winning arguments as it's an entirely different matter, achieved through sound judgement, reflection and experience, and there is no special art for this.
Thus, the true value of this book lies in its ability to sharpen our awareness of certain techniques, used in debates. By understanding these stratagems, we can better recognise when others are using them against us, allowing us to respond more effectively and maintain the integrity of our own arguments.
The summary and examples of each of the 38 tactics presented in the book are below. However, as I found the book a little hard to understand, I simplified the explanations and included simpler real-life examples as well as how each of the tactics can be disputed.
The Extension: Divert the argument to a broader issue to weaken your opponent's position.
For example, if someone criticises a specific environmental policy, you respond by attacking the credibility of the entire environmental movement.
How to dispute: "Let’s focus on the specifics of the policy we’re discussing. My political affiliation doesn’t change the merits or drawbacks of this particular environmental policy. Can we stick to the facts and evidence related to the policy itself?”
The Homonymy: Misinterpret your opponent's words by taking them in a different sense.
For example, if your friend says, "I love books," you respond, "How can you love something that can't love you back?"
How to dispute: "When I said 'I love books,' I meant that I have a deep appreciation for reading and literature. Let's not distract from the main point by twisting the meaning of my words.”
Generalise Your Opponent’s Specific Statements: Broaden your opponent's specific argument to a general principle that can be more easily attacked.
For example, your colleague suggests a new procedure for one department, and you counter with, "So you think the entire company should change its processes?"
How to dispute: "I was specifically talking about this new procedure for our department, not the entire company. Let’s address the specific merits and concerns of this proposal on its own.”
Conceal Your Game: Avoid making your intentions clear to prevent your opponent from anticipating your moves.
For example, in a discussion about budgeting, you initially talk about general financial principles before revealing your aim to cut specific programs.
How to dispute: "It seems like the discussion is being guided towards a specific outcome. Can we be upfront about the goals here and evaluate them directly? What specific programs are we considering cutting, and what are the pros and cons?”
False Premises: Pretend not to understand your opponent's argument to make them clarify repeatedly, exposing any weaknesses.
For example, during a tech debate, you keep asking, "What do you mean by 'encryption'?" forcing your opponent to over-explain.
How to dispute: "I believe you understand the basic concept of encryption. Let’s not get bogged down in definitions and instead focus on the main points of our debate.”
Postulate What Has to Be Proved: Assume the truth of what you are supposed to prove to make it difficult for your opponent to challenge - people are less likely to question something presented as a widely accepted fact.
For example, "Everyone knows that remote work decreases productivity, so we should all return to the office."
How to dispute it: "The claim that remote work decreases productivity is actually still debated and not universally accepted. Can you provide specific evidence or studies that support your assertion? Let’s examine the data before jumping to conclusions.”
Yield Admissions Through Questions: Ask leading questions to get your opponent to concede points that support your argument.
For example: "Wouldn't you agree that children need structure? And isn't school the best place to provide that?"
How to dispute it: "While structure is important for children, the question of whether school is the best place for that structure is more complex. There are other factors and environments that also contribute to a child's development.”
Make Your Opponent Angry: Anger clouds judgment, making it easier to defeat an irate opponent.
For example, you can use dismissive language like, "Only someone ignorant would think that," to provoke an emotional reaction.
How to dispute it: "Let’s keep the discussion respectful and focused on the issues at hand. Insults don’t contribute to a productive debate. Can we return to the main point and discuss it rationally?”
Questions in Detouring Order: Ask questions in a random order to confuse your opponent and break the flow of their argument.
For example, you can structure your questions as follows: "What do you think about the budget? And how about the timeline? Do we have enough resources?”
How to dispute it: "These are all important questions, but let’s address them one at a time to ensure we cover each point thoroughly. Can we start with the budget and then move on to the timeline and resources?”
Take Advantage of the No-sayer: Leverage the inherent opposition of someone who habitually disagrees or says "no" to any proposal.
For example, you might say, "I know some people might think we shouldn't innovate and should stick to our old methods, but we need to move forward." This sets up the "no-sayer" to oppose innovation, making them look resistant to progress.
How to dispute it: "While I understand the importance of innovation, my concern is about the specific details of this proposal. Let’s discuss the potential risks and benefits of this project in more detail to ensure we’re making the best decision.”
Generalise Admissions of Specific Cases: Take a specific admission or concession made by your opponent and generalise it to a broader context.
For example, in a debate about environmental policy, your opponent concedes that some industrial regulations have helped reduce pollution in a specific region. You then generalise this admission by saying, "Even you agree that all industrial regulations are beneficial for reducing pollution everywhere.”
How to dispute it: "I acknowledged that certain regulations have been effective in a specific region, but that doesn’t mean all regulations will have the same impact everywhere. We need to consider each case individually and examine the evidence before making broad generalisations.”
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition: Use metaphors that frame your argument in a positive light or your opponent's argument in a negative light
For example, in a debate about urban development, you might describe your opponent’s plan as “concreting over our green spaces,” which suggests destruction and insensitivity to the environment. Conversely, you describe your own plan as “planting the seeds of a vibrant community,” which evokes growth and positivity.
How to dispute: "Your metaphor seems loaded and implies environmental harm. However, what we’re discussing are thoughtful developments that include green spaces and sustainability measures. Let’s look at the specifics of the plan and evaluate its environmental impact based on the actual data.”
Agree to Reject the Counter-Argument: Make your opponent accept the rejection of their counter-argument by leading them to contradict themselves.
For example, "You say you support freedom of speech, but don't you agree there should be limits to prevent hate speech?"
How to dispute it: "Supporting freedom of speech while recognising certain limits for preventing harm is not contradictory. We can discuss the balance between these principles without rejecting either outright.”
Claim Victory Despite Defeat: If your opponent proves you wrong, twist the outcome to suggest it supports your argument.
For example, "Your point about the cost actually proves my argument that we need more funding."
How to dispute it: "Actually, the cost issue highlights a need for better budgeting and efficiency, not necessarily more funding. We should look at ways to optimise our current resources first.”
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions: Present an argument that appears absurd or extreme to make your opponent’s position look unreasonable. For example, in a debate about reducing carbon emissions, you might say, "If you think we should limit factory emissions, why not just shut down all factories and live without any industrial benefits?" How to dispute it: "My proposal is about finding ways to reduce harmful emissions through better regulations and cleaner technology, not shutting down factories. Let's focus on discussing feasible solutions that balance industrial benefits with environmental responsibility.”
Use Your Opponent's Views: Turn your opponent’s own beliefs or previous statements against them.
For example, in a discussion about freedom of speech, you might say, "You believe in freedom of speech, so you should support my right to say anything I want, even if it's harmful or offensive.”
How to dispute it: "While I support freedom of speech, it is also important to recognise its limits, especially when speech causes harm or incites violence. We need to consider the responsible use of this freedom and the impact it has on others.”
Defence Through Subtle Distinction: Use nuanced or subtle differences to defend your position against criticism, to make your argument appear more reasonable.
For example, "I didn’t say we should ban cars completely, just that we should significantly reduce their numbers in the city centre to decrease traffic congestion and pollution.”
How to dispute it: "It's important to clarify your position. Are you suggesting restrictions on car usage, and if so, what specific measures do you propose? Understanding the specifics will help us evaluate the potential impact and feasibility of your suggestion.”
Interrupt, Break Up, Divert the Debate: Interrupt your opponent frequently to disrupt their flow of argument and divert attention away from their main points.
For example, during a discussion on healthcare reform, you might constantly interrupt your opponent with off-topic questions or comments about unrelated healthcare statistics.
How to dispute it: "Please allow me to finish my point without interruptions. We can address your questions and comments once I’ve completed my argument. It’s important that we each have the opportunity to present our views fully.”
Generalise The Matter, then Argue Against It: Take a specific admission or case and generalise it to make a broader, often unwarranted, conclusion.
For example, "You admitted that there was a case of fraud in the system, so we can’t trust any part of it.”
How to dispute it: "While it’s true that there are instances of fraud, it's not accurate to generalise that the entire system is untrustworthy. We need to address the specific cases and work on improving the system overall. Let’s look at the data and see how widespread the problem actually is.”
Draw Conclusions Yourself: Draw conclusions based on what you claim your opponent believes, often misrepresenting or oversimplifying their position.
For example, you may say "From what you’ve said about needing more regulations, it’s clear that you don’t care about economic growth.”
How to dispute it: "That’s not what I implied. My concern is about finding a balance between necessary regulations to protect public interests and fostering economic growth. Let’s discuss how we can achieve both objectives.”
Counter with an Argument as Bad as His: When faced with a weak or flawed argument, respond with an equally weak or flawed counter-argument. This tactic aims to show that the opponent's logic can be turned against them.
For example, In a discussion about environmental policy, if your opponent says, "We should ignore climate change because it’s a natural process," you might respond with, "Then we should ignore all medical diseases because they are natural processes too.”
How to dispute it: "Both arguments are oversimplifications. Just as we address medical diseases despite their natural occurrence, we should address climate change because of its significant impact on our environment and society. Let’s focus on the specific actions we can take.”
Beg the Question: Assume the conclusion within the premises of your argument, creating a circular reasoning. This tactic makes it seem like the conclusion is a given**.**
For example, "We must reduce taxes because lower taxes are beneficial." Here, the statement assumes the conclusion (that lower taxes are beneficial) without providing evidence.
How to dispute it: "Your argument assumes that lower taxes are beneficial without providing evidence. Can we discuss specific examples or data that support the benefits of reducing taxes?”
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement: Push your opponent to overstate their case, making it easier to refute.
For example, In a debate on gun control, you might say, "So, you think everyone should own a gun, even children?" This forces an exaggerated position onto your opponent.
How to dispute it: "I’m not suggesting that everyone, including children, should own guns. My point is about responsible gun ownership with appropriate regulations. Let’s discuss the specifics of what I’m proposing.”
State a False Syllogism: Create a logical argument that applies deductive reasoning, that is invalid by using incorrect or misleading premises.
For example, "All students need textbooks. You don’t have textbooks. Therefore, you are not a student." This argument is based on a false premise that all students have textbooks.
How to dispute it: "The syllogism is flawed because the premise that all students have textbooks is not necessarily true. There can be students without textbooks for various reasons. Let’s revisit the premises of the argument.”
Find the Instance to the Contrary: Identify a single counterexample to disprove a general statement made by your opponent. This tactic aims to show that the generalisation is not universally true.
For example, if someone argues, "All politicians are corrupt," you might respond with, "But what about Senator Smith, who has a clean record and is known for his integrity?”
How to dispute it: "While Senator Smith may be an exception, we should look at the broader patterns and systemic issues. One counterexample doesn’t invalidate the need for reforms or broader scrutiny of political corruption.”Turn the Tables: Use your opponent’s argument or position against them, effectively reversing the situation to undermine their stance.
For example, if your opponent argues for strict law enforcement policies by saying, "We need to follow the law to the letter," you might turn the tables by saying, "So, you must agree that we should also strictly enforce laws on corporate tax evasion, even if it means punishing businesses harshly."
How to dispute it: "The principle of strict law enforcement should be applied consistently, but it’s important to consider the context and implications of each law. Let’s discuss how we can ensure fair and effective enforcement across different areas, including corporate regulation."Anger Indicates a Weak Point: Provoking anger in your opponent as a means to suggest that their emotional reaction reveals a weak point in their argument.
For example, in a heated debate about educational reform, you might make a provocative statement such as, "You’re only getting upset because you know your argument doesn’t hold up.”
How to dispute it: "Emotions can run high in important discussions, but let’s focus on the substance of the arguments rather than personal reactions. Addressing the core issues calmly and rationally will help us find common ground and solutions.”Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent: Focus on winning over the audience rather than convincing your opponent.
For example, during a public debate, use relatable anecdotes and address the audience directly rather than engaging with your opponent's data.
How to dispute it: "While it’s important to engage the audience, we should also address the specifics of the argument directly. Let’s stick to the facts and evidence that support or refute our positions.”Diversion: Change the subject to distract from a weak point in your argument.
For example, if criticised about a project deadline, shift the conversation to the project's overall success and future benefits.
How to dispute it: "The project's overall success and future benefits are important, but right now we need to address the specific issue of the missed deadline. Can we discuss what caused the delay and how we can prevent it in the future?”Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason: Cite authoritative sources to support your position, regardless of the strength of your logical argument.
For example, "Dr. Smith from Harvard supports this, so it must be correct."
How to dispute it: "While Dr. Smith's opinion is valuable, we should also look at the evidence and reasoning behind his support. Let’s examine the data and logic that underpin his conclusion.”This is beyond me: Pretend that the opponent's argument is too complex or technical to understand.
For example, in a discussion about quantum physics, you might say, "All this talk about quantum mechanics is beyond me. I just don’t see how it applies to our everyday lives."
How to dispute it: "Quantum mechanics can seem complex, but let’s break it down into simpler concepts. Understanding the basics can help us see its practical implications and relevance to our discussion."Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category: Associate your opponent's thesis with a negative or undesirable category to discredit it by association.
For example, if your opponent advocates for a particular economic policy, you might say, "Your ideas sound a lot like those failed communist policies."
How to dispute it: "Let’s avoid labeling and focus on the specifics of the policy. It’s important to evaluate the proposal on its own merits rather than associating it with unrelated ideologies."It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice: Dismiss the opponent’s argument by claiming it might work theoretically, but is impractical in real-life scenarios.
For example, in a debate about renewable energy, you might argue, "Your plan sounds great in theory, but it’s not practical given our current infrastructure and economic constraints."
How to dispute it: "Many ideas start in theory and are then adapted to practice. Let’s discuss specific steps and technologies that can help make the transition to renewable energy more practical and feasible."Don't Let Him Off the Hook: Persistently press your opponent on a specific point or inconsistency in their argument, refusing to let them move on until they adequately address it.
For example, if your opponent makes a vague statement about their policy, you might repeatedly say, "But you still haven’t explained how exactly you plan to fund this initiative."
How to dispute it: "I appreciate your persistence, but we need to consider the broader context as well. I’m happy to provide more details, but let’s ensure our discussion covers all relevant aspects."Will is More Effective Than Insight: Argue that determination and resolve are more important than knowledge or insight, downplaying the need for detailed understanding in favour of action.
For example, in a business strategy meeting, you might say, "What we need is the will to push this through, not more analysis and planning."
How to dispute it: "Determination is important, but it should be guided by thorough analysis and planning to ensure success. Let’s combine our resolve with informed decision-making."The Vicar of Wakefield: Use an unrelated anecdote or irrelevant point to distract from the main argument, often a charming or seemingly wise story that sidetracks the debate.
For example, during a debate about public health policy, you might start telling a story about an old doctor who treated patients with simple home remedies.
How to dispute it: "That’s an interesting story, but let’s stay focused on the current public health policy discussion. It’s important to address the specific issues and evidence relevant to our debate."A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position: Point out a single mistake or flaw in your opponent's argument to claim that their entire position is invalid.
For example, let’s say your opponent presents several pieces of evidence supporting their stance, you can highlight a minor error in one of their sources and argue, "Since this piece of evidence is flawed, your whole argument falls apart."
How to dispute it: "While there may be an error in one part of the evidence, it doesn’t invalidate the entire argument. Let’s correct the mistake and consider the other supporting points as well."The Ultimate Strategy: Become personal, insulting, rude, and attack his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
For example, during a political debate about healthcare policy, if you feel cornered by your opponent's superior arguments, you might say, "Well, it's easy for you to say that from your privileged position. You've never had to worry about paying medical bills, so how can you possibly understand the struggles of ordinary people?”
How to dispute it: You can politely steer the conversation back to the main issue, saying: "Let's focus on the facts and the policies at hand. Personal circumstances are important, but we need to discuss solutions that work for everyone.” or summarising the main points of your argument to remind the opponent of the logical foundation of your stance: "To reiterate, the data shows that universal healthcare can improve overall public health and reduce long-term costs.”
Get in touch!
If you think we should talk,
please send me an email:
hi@linamileskaite.com
