Art of Deception--Refutation of Analogy

Art of Deception--Refutation of Analogy
p 139

2 types, literal and figurative

show the dissimilarities between the thing and its comparison
show the weakness in the comparisons
example, comparing God's work with the way humans work
Can God be proven because of the way humans work?--set up a perplexing problem.


Refutation of Conclusion

the conclusion is too extreme
the name given is weird
reduce the conclusion to emotion
attack with the Latin name
appeals are exposed
Hasty generalizations
You jumped to that conclusion far too quickly
The sampling is far too small (stats)
the group blows up too quickly
apply a small group with the whole group
Division
May be true, but the full acceptance requires more data
truth for a small group may not be the principle for the whole group
Accident
a single success may not be the answer
general principles are not derived from one-time accidents
there are other general principles, negating the proposed one
overextend the specific point:  interfering in a country will go world wide to all countries
it doesn't meet a useful goal
Dilemma
call the theory contrary rather than contradictory.  If the president says something, he is against all the countries values rather than that it is a single exception
the idea is a dilemma--it diverges from the speaker's points
Nonverbal
upstage and distract the audience

These tricks seem to be universal in their execution.  Rather than concede to any points, the opposition goes through all kinds of distractions, some by misrepresenting the motives behind the points, but some are merely distracting.  The audience needs to demand the data.  Their are some real problems in the opposition's behaviors, but his tactics may not be fair to the speaker.