Art of Deception; Refutation of Theoretical Constructs

Art of Deception
Refutation of Theoretical Constructs
p 136

People distrust abstractions.  Use that distrust.
By their nature it is easy to point to 2 or 3 examples of something that works contrary to the premise.
It's similar to discussion Freud's arguments about the conscious and subconscious.

I see this as fairly common.  This is why politicians parade guests who are harmed by particular public policies.  Show Desaline, the 103 year old African American who stood in line for hours to vote.  That visual undermines the oppositions voting law strengthening reforms.

Refutation of Classification
p 137

The opposition makes a claim, and classifies a particular issue.  You show that the classification is wrong, and thus undermine his other claims as well.

The president calls for immigration reform as a necessary public reformation of our times.  The opposition calls for economic reforms and calls his call a secondary and less important issue.

Refutation of Definition
p 137

You cite the definition of your opponent.  (Sean Hannity calls liberals particularly annoying things.)
You expose it as weird or wrong.

You could call something circular thinking.  It could also use equivocation.

This looks like a strong way to expose the limited thinking of an argument to the people.

One particular argument comes to mind:

Assertion (George Bush).  We are fighting for freedom.  "They" want to destroy our freedom.

Subtexts:  His ideas are freedom.
American democracy is freedom.
Terrorism is anti-freedom.

Problems to exploit?  What is "freedom"?

Be careful what you use as your argument, and define your terms and vocabulary, especially to dispel the inevitable attack on a "general" term like freedom or love.  To do this render up your definition and account for the most salient particulars that would unravel your argument.  Otherwise the argument will appear all "pathos" and little logic or ethics.