# Notes on Rhetoric



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 28, 2005)

UK Blogger Mark Kaplan has posted a guide to "negotiating the so-called 'blogosphere'" which I think is germane to forum debating also. 

Enjoy!



> In negotiating the so-called 'blogosphere' you will need to be aware of certain obligatory rhetorical tools with which to rebut opponents. The following are a few I have noted at random, and can be used in comments boxes or when critiquing a publication:
> 
> A priori - your apriori supposition is that: ‘I operate by the clear light of reason, you according to preconceived notions’. You are using pure thought and evidence, your opponent is unthinkingly in thrall to canards, tired clichés, and various pieces of received wisdom.
> 
> ...



Continued . . .


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 28, 2005)

> Real World - Invariably, a place where things are different. Inhabited by ‘ordinary people’. Often located in Glasgow’s East End or even outside the First World altogether, as in ‘this might sound plausible in Christ Church common room, but it rings pretty hollow in the Guatemalan jungle’. Needless to say, your interlocutor is unfamiliar with it.
> 
> Reminders – are always ‘salutary’. Your opponent has a poor memory and needs many such reminders.
> 
> ...



Can you think of any others?


----------



## Confusticated (Mar 28, 2005)

Pretty funny stuff. I had that last one in mind while reading through. It drives me mad when people say that at times when I know for a fact that they know it is not true.

Here's another, tell them that you can see through their weasling, and you "suspect everyone else can too (though they don't bother to point it out)."


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 20, 2005)

I've got one.

*"Read this book . . . "* -- Suggest to your opponent that she "Read book x [e.g. Hayek's _Road to Serfdom_], and come back when you have done so and we can continue this discussion." Until your opponent reads that book, the debate is finished, and victory is yours by default. This strategy is, of course, a blatant appeal to authority; but then again it is highly unlikely that either your opponent or anyone else following your debate will be familiar with the tome in question. And if, against all probability, your opponent actually reads it (or has read it), you can always berate her for clumsily failing to properly grasp its meaning.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 20, 2005)

*Hallmarks of Specious Discussion*

Sophistry and speciousness both define an apparently sound but actually fallacious argument. Here are some of the characteristics typically found in sophistic argumentation and specious reasoning:

• Your opponent will tell you that there is abundant research to back up the claims made, but has no time to look for it
• He will employ multisyllabic verbiage, gobbledygook, bloviation: that is, use ten times as many words as necessary to express an idea, as if sheer verbosity alone would give weight and authority to an otherwise unfounded assertion. In fact, it might feel as if your opponent is "trying to wear you out with words"
• He may profess indignance at any legitimate challenges to his assertions and allegations, and will simply ignore all legitimate refutation of his argument
• Your opponent’s style will be lofty, magisterial and authoritarian — even openly sarcastic — instead of factual and open, with a dogmatic and absolutist tone
• He speaks as if his subjective conjecture and opinions are obvious fact
• He will obfuscate the issue with irrelevancies
• He will use tangential, inappropriate and/or irrelevant comparisons, metaphors and similes
• He may threaten to abandon the discussion
• Should you yourself decide to waste no further time on what you consider a fruitless/useless/pointless discussion due to exasperation keeping up with such tactics, your opponent may well take that as a victory, and proof-by-default of the truth of his original (and unfounded/unproven) assertions

Barley


----------

