Almost all of us, we love to be right about something
and some of us - at all costs.
But what about situations, where the TRUE isn't on our side,
but we still don't want to concede the defeat?
We are ready to do everything to win the argument.
No matter if it is a private conversation
public debate or internet quarrel.
What may lend us a hand is ERISTIC.
A method of conducting dispute.
Born in ancient Greece
and systematized by
Arthur Schopenhauer in the middle of 19th century.
Often called "the art of refuting the argument"
or non-substantive way of argumentation
eristic uses all of the available linguistic measures
and non-linguistic ones to achieve the goal
which is to win the discussion.
But let's move on to the most important part - the examples, that will picture
eight of the most popular eristic tricks that still function and are doing well.
#1 AUTHORITY
This one is the eristic trick, where we refer
to a recognizable authority, that is generally respected
or that the other person is afraid to question, because
of the common respect that the authority is gifted with.
Here's an example:
- Please don't say that you're a "nationalist",
because you have nothing to do with Roman Dmowski and PiS.
 
[R.D. was an early 20th century polish politian,
PiS is a ruling polish political party]
Nothing to do with nationalists!
- Happily, in my veins flows the blood of National Force's General Commendant
I think that's better than books on your shelf, isn't it?
 
(Literal translation)
ORESTES:
Envoy Tarczyński referred to a person,
whose position made a very big impression on the audience.
Furthermore, that person is a closely related
to Mr. Tarczyński,
which increases his trustworthiness.
1:0 for Dominik Tarczyński.
Despite the fact that it was a smokescreen and a runaway from accusations.
- Referring to the words of The Church,
First of all, let's take the words
of The Primate of The Millenium,
who said about the order of mercy.
ORESTES:
Using the authority in defending our own opinion
you need to remember
to use one that is incontestable
and commonly respected.
Then also, taking the side of such person,
we can count on
favourable look of the recipients.
This technique works not only in self-defence,
but also in attack.
- The nazis... those, who murdered Poles
they were national socialists,
the same moonbats as you.
ORESTES:
Suggesting the correlation between our opponent
and a person or people with unequivocal
negative reputation
we put our opponent in a defensive position,
where if he doesn't pay attention to our guile
he may make a mistake,
letting himself to be lead by his emotions.
As I mentioned before,
the most important thing about this eristic trick
is referring to an authority who's
commonly respected/valued by our interlocutor.
- I haven't said anything like that.
Also, I need to upset you here, because even
professor Andrzej Zoll
said that the convention is a very
doubtful document (...)
has a lot of legal uncertainties.
- It doesn't bother me what a conservatist like him said.
- However, the point is to not run such a destructive economy in Puszcza Białowieska
 
[P.B. is a natural reservoir in Poland]
this is what, for instance,
Mr. President Lech Kaczyński had on his mind.
 
[In this case the talking man is referring to an authority, who is respected by the interlocutor]
#2 GENERAL CONCEPTS
When starting the discussion,
we need to remember
how exactly do we want to construct the sentece.
Then, we shall use words that will make it easier for us to prove our own argument
or those, that will help us to refute the opponent's thesis.
Lots of words carry an emotional load, so it's good to take advantage of that.
Where one sees radicalism, we may see passion.
Courage may be taken as recklessness
and one's religion, we can call a sect.
Let's see how does it work in practice.
- A girl who goes out at new year's party isn't afraid of refugees, she's afraid of young polish bullies,
who are also aggressive.
ORESTES:
The same group of people may be shown as
"aggressive polish bullies"
or
"young, polish patriots"
- But now you have put an equal sign
and I can't agree with that
between "young, polish patriots"
wearing Armia Krajowa t-shirts
 
[A.K. is a Home Army movement]
- I assume that you don't
cut yourself from such behaviour,
that you don't despise
what your adherents are doing,
what your BIGOTS are doing.
ORESTES:
Pay attention, that in a context
of morally doubtful situation
the word BIGOTS gains very pejorative meaning
and also takes the blame on the side of the person, that we're discussing with.
In defence, we may use more neutral term.
- This is the case of our inner political culture,
and we shall aim for making our SUPPORTERS, regardless what party are we (...)
#3 SNOWBALL
Fear is a great weapon in a debate.
Often we cause it by suggesting the existence of consequence of certain action.
Often the consequences are exaggerated
and multiplied, what lets us achieve an intended effect,
which is suggesting everyone that the thesis of our opponent
means much bigger threat
that we assumed in the first place, e.g.:
- We have abortion on demand and in fact no one may be sure about their own fate
because today we have abortion on demand,
in a moment, we may have child euthanasia
and so on and so on...
ORESTES:
And one more example.
- This is terrifying, what you're saying, sir.
Because soon you're gonna go a step further,
and if you have to grow up to maternity and you may kill a human, then soon we may decide that you also need to grow up to take care of your elders
and we'll decide that we need to exterminate those infirm parents of ours.
ORESTES:
The Snowball argument usually shows up
in discussion about
abortion, homosexual relationships,
nationalism and ecology.
But skilfully used may find
it's place in almost every debate.
#4 AD HOMINEM
(Adapted to a certain person)
If you want to use this eristic trick, we'll have
to be well prepared
we may need to get to know something about our opponent before our discussion,
or we'll have to be very carreful
whilst our conversation itself
because the Ad Hominem argument is nothing else than pointing out our opponent's contradiction in what he's saying
and how he used to behave or what he said, e.g.:
- I have to say that I admire such unbeliveable
flexibility of Mr. Duda,
because just now he declared that it is priority to defend Poland from U.E.'s climacy policy
but 11 months ago in the questionnaire, you have said that U.E. should exacerbate this policy.
Please, be consistent.
ORESTES:
As you can see, Mr. Komorowski did his homework and because of that he could make the impression
that his opponent should not be taken seriously.
Because he says one thing, but does something completely different.
Another example of usage of Ad Hominem argument
is the suggestion that the outlook of our opponent is convergent with our thesis, e.g.:
- So if you really care for the wealth of women, you should not be such a big enemy of weapon possession.
#5 MAKING UP CONSEQUENCES
The idea of this argument is to make up a thesis based on words of our interlocutor
of course the thesis needs to be consistent with
our own beliefs
or one that puts our enemy in a bad light.
Making the impression that the made-up consequences are strictly correlated with the thesis supported by our enemy,
we can suggest the audience that his thesis has been, ipso facto, taken down.
- If it's about 6-year-olds, why do you take away the right from our young, talented polish children
to be more competetive from the children in other european countries?
#6 AD POPULUM
(Referring to people's preferences)
As I mentioned in the beginning of the video,
the objective of most debates
is not to convince our opponent
but to convince the audience.
And of course, it is  nearly impossible to get to every single person with our opinions.
But if we convince the majority,
we can start considering ourselves
as the winners of the debate.
This is why so often we can encounter the Ad Populum argument, referring to the preferences of people,
because it is based on
the nation's egoism, instincts, stereotypes
or the aversion to everything that's new and unknown and what requires intensive thinking
and nonconformity.
Using given eristic trick, we can suggest the audience
that we are the same as them, and we'll protect what's close to them.
And using phrases like such:
- Miss, all we need to do is to go out on the streets and ask people's opinion
and in this matter, it is unequivocal.
ORESTES:
We suggest, that our thesis is common
and very often, there is no need to prove it.
We have six popular eristic tricks behind us,
that occur in many different discussions
but what about situations, where we used all of them
but still we don't consider ourselves winners?
#7 ANGER
Leading our opponent to anger may come in handy
there are plenty methods, from personal violence
through irony, ending up on digging the subjects
and curiosity in very
emotional matters.
For example here:
[Inaudible]
- Sir, you're the one saying
that you want money, money, give me money.
What the f**k are you talking about? I have just said (...)
ORESTES:
We need to remember that causing
the anger of our interlocutor
we need to remain calm and composed.
- I've been reading, for God's sake I don't know, I'm just saying what I've read.
I don't want to participate in this, thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Paweł Kukiz was mine and your guest.
#8 AD PERSONAM
(An argument aimed at a person)
Schopenhauer says:
"If we see that an enemy has an advantage
and it looks like we're about to be defeated
then we shall attack him in a personal, rude and offensive way.
We forget about the debate's subject
and we attack the opponent in any way.
(Seriously, any way)
- But it has nothing to do with...
- I'm not talking with you, miss
because it makes no sense to discuss with fools.
- Miss, you shall not feel being a Pole now,
you are a representative of Germany now. And this is what you're doing to us today.
[Inaudible]
- I'm done, good bye. It's my last time discussing
with Mr. Terlikowski, because sadly he is out of his mind.
- My brother, you have destroyed him, murdered him, you're all just knaves!
- Such pests as yourself (...)
- Thank you.
- Always the same Mr. Kaczyński, hypocrite, aiming for the power at any costs. Lying, false, disgusting...
ORESTES:
That was 8 eristic tricks that are suitable
for almost any debate.
But wait...
It feels like something is missing here...
Of course! What would any discussion mean
if not the Hitler reference or nazism?
GODWIN'S LAW
It is a humorous observation
made in 1990, by Mike Godwin
which basically suggests that a person that used a comparison to Hitler or nazism in a discussion,
automatically looses the debate.
But of course, we all know that,
and no one does that anymore.
[Inaudible]
- (...) I'm sorry, but what has
Wladimir Lenin done in 1920 in USSR?
- And Hitler!
In Soviet Union! What has done Hitler in 1936?
- (...) punishing after the fact...
- You can not punish before the fact.
- You, sir, are promoting...
- Isn't that how Adolf Hitler used to punish with his armbads?
- The Schengen Area has nothing to do
with European Union.
[Inaudible]
- Sir, you are not seeing the investment in the infrastructure, culture.
- Yes, yes, I know, Adolf Hitler also built highways.
That would be all for today, but do not turn off
your screens yet
because I have an important announcement for you.
This was not a tutorial. And it would be great if we'd limit or completely give up on using such
non-substantive way of argumentation,
which we use a lot, not only in politics.
Today's episode is the first one in the series where I'm gonna talk about it
and I'll point out such things
as logic and language errors,
that we have encountered today a lot.
The next videos will be made within "A dowodzik jest?" action, which objective is to encourage people
to verify informations through searching for proof and scientific evidence
And also to pay attention for the quality of given evidence, or it's lack.
So I encourage you to subscribe the channel
if you're looking forward to see following materials
in the next episodes of the series.
Also I'll be joined by another guest,
if you liked it, smash that Like button
and leave a comment
and that would be it for now. Thanks for your attention
and see you next time.
 
 
 
