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.

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.

Art of Deception--Refutation of Precedent

Art of Deception (Continued) p 127

Refutation of Precedent

3 major premises:

Because it is the historical fact, it must be protected.  Example the eminent domain and what governments do, when they consider a property more valuable to the community than to the landowner

The protected thing does not apply to the problem at hand.  An attempt to show that it has qualities that are distinctly contrary than what the person uses to protect his personal domain

Push the protected item it to its extreme.  Undermining the premise with exaggerations destroys the argument.

If ound this discussion very informative in the current battle very gun rights.  I see both proponents and opponents of gun rights using the tactics.



Gun right opponents says:  The Constitution has always guaranteed that citizens can have and own guns.

Employ these refutations:
1.  The community would be far safer with the guns.  Draw a picture of people living safely.
2   No, we are not "controlling guns."  We are only asking for control over specific military level guns that have no use to the regular citizen
c.  If you let this go, every citizen will be brandishing a firearm.

Gun right proponent argues:

Smart gun control will make the citizens safer

Employ these refutaions:
1.  Historically gun control has not let to safer conditions.  Illustrate the communities with a long history of gun violence with gun controls in place.
2.  Gun control in other countries would not work in a country with more guns than people.
3.  If gun control begins, it will eventually lead to gun confiscation.

Both sides in the debate are employing these refutations of precedent.  They try to prove they have real history at their disposal.  Bot are savvy enough to find plenty of precedents for their side.

What this does in my own mind is to cause me more than ever to stay out of the discussion.  The premises that both sides assign themselves to seem absurd.  Circumstantil evidence would seem to trump any argument either side might say.  Ultimately the question will probably need the intercession of the Supreme Court, and whatever it is will undoubtedly ensure that the issue does not go away.

This discussion illustrates more about the entrenchment in arguments more than posing any remediation.