>I've never won an argument in my life Are there any

>>8416532
Facts don't matter (cf. Trump). Most of it is finding an audience who wants to hear what you will tell them.

Read Plato's Gorgias and ignore everything Socrates says.

Aristotle's Rhetoric

>>8416532
As stupid as Sam Harris is, he's a brilliant debater. He uses the language of his opponents to undermine them. He also tiptoes around important issues until he can find out what the "correct" public stance is. He doesn't get angry, because he doesn't really care about the outcome. He's just trying to pander to an audience and sell books.

File: 41kt6UQ4wEL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (30KB, 334x499px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 334x499px

>God's standards for sexuality

Because God and Santa Claus can only whack off to it when I bang women

>>8416532
read Schopenhauers "the art of being right"

>>8417258

All you need, senpai.

my're diary

>>8416576
I was about to object, but you're right and I agree with you.

>>8416532
No one is absolute, so who really wins.

>>8416532

Doing bother reading about logic or rhetoric or properdebating and stuff. There's literally only one technique you need to know:
>act like the issue is really personal
>get really upset and offended, cry even
>other person, granted they don't have autism, feels bad and is forced to apologize

for example, when someone starts criticizing theism, just talk about how God saved your life or something. Or if people start badmouthing talk Harry Potter series, talk about how the books "helped you out in a dark time in your life" or some shit like that. Talk about how you probably wouldn't be alive today without those things and they if your oponent still holds his opinion, it means they want you dead.

there are no victories in arguments.

>>8416532
Not books, but I like to watch the Intelligence Squared debates ( https://www.youtube.com/user/IntelligenceSquared ) to study how successful debaters sway the audience's opinion

I can not recall a single instance in life in which an argument/discussion has sucessfully convinced somebody to change their opinion. When shown in public debates, sure, but two people discussion any subject I've yet to see it actually work.

File: 1459419595355.png (113KB, 500x592px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x592px

>tfw expert rhetorician
>tfw won a university debate (decided by popular vote) in which I pretended to be the Sweden Democrats
normies are too easy

>win an argument
>win

>>8418158
>>8418187
>win
Yeah, 1 on 1 I'm pretty sure you can only do it by exhaustion. But 1 on 1 arguments are still useful if you can reflect on the weaker points of your argument and common misinterpretations/analogies that make you arguments look weaker.

>>8418200
I wasn't saying it's impossible, but that it should not be the goal of the interlocutor.

>>8416532
Could you give an example of someone who actually won an argument? Usually people just end up disagreeing and moving on.

Winning arguments loses friends. Exchange ideas and try to work things out with the other person. Dialectics.

>>8416576
How do people on /lit/ define intelligence. In engineering its about how fast and effectively you can find and solve difficult problems in any scenario. But in /lit/ it doesnt seem to work that way.

>>8418605
what score you get on this

http://www.nicologic.fr/logicA/logicA_test.php

>>8418632
Surely anyone can do all of them?

File: logic-A.png (228KB, 1920x2104px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1920x2104px

>>8418632
>>8418721
fucked up

>>8418605
language and literature were always about cunning, you don't have to solve the problem as long as you are seen as the problem-solver

>>8418632
I just got 10, am I super smrat

File: Screenshot_2016-08-20-16-34-34.png (356KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1440x2560px

>>8418632

>>8418724
To be fair I almost got that one wrong.The global indication on the bottom gave away for me though.

File: result.png (50KB, 1366x662px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1366x662px

>>8418760
Anyone care to explain the solution for 5?

>get into an argument in class
>bullshit my way through it
>"anon, that makes no sense "
>"Neither does the fact that you're still a virgin at your age, but it's the truth"
>everyone laughs and a bunch of us go out for drinks afterward

Might makes right desu

>>8418825
Nevermind I got it now.

File: kk.jpg (97KB, 920x633px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 920x633px

>>8418632
who the fuck needs 10min for this?

>>8416532
Yes

Study the Socratic method. People didn't think Socrates was hot shit for nothing. Euthyphro is a good example, don't bother with dialogues like Crito or Apology which don't highlight his method.

First, internalize that you are looking at your opponent not as an opponent but as a teacher, someone you desperately want help from. They know the truth and you have to persuade them to give it you.

If you can successfully humble yourself to think like this (you will have your doubts of course but you will become more humble) you'll start to show it and your opponent won't be on guard as much. They will think they are helping you rather than defending themselves.

Ask questions, specfically the places where an argument feels fishy. You should have a sense for this and hopefully it will get stronger. Most likely it will be where connotations for definitions are too vague or general and you sense that there are contradictions or exceptions to what they are proposing.

Ask "What about x and y exceptions" rather than declaring "There are x and y exceptions". Continue doing this and you should eventually have a very good picture of where key contradictions are and they most likely won't be wise of it because they are constantly asking your questions.

Create an impasse through a question, and if they back track make them recall past positions they have proposed.

If they make a successful counterpoint don't spaz out. Just think for a minute and see if it is true. If it is true be happy about it because why not, say you'll think more about.

Honestly people are far more willing to be persuaded than this thread makes it seem.

>>8418605

>But in /lit/ it doesnt seem to work that way.

You never put any thought into why you're solving problems. You get a contract to build a bridge, so you draw up the plans and calculate all the stresses and build it and if it doesn't fall down you get paid. You never wondered why people needed to cross the river in the first place. Your life's passion is decided by market demand. You will do what you're paid to do, and maybe build some useless robots out of kits in your spare time. Other than the financial incentive, you have no real idea why you do the things you do, If pressed you will say "it's useful" or "it helps people do practical things" as if the teenage girl who bags my groceries isn't doing the exact same thing.

That's why we don't care much for your definition of intelligence, you're just little drones.

>>8419087
What about with respect to the sciences?

>>8419143
Ignore him. He's an idiot who is cherry picking aspects of a career he doesn't understand.

Someone could easily have a passion for engineering who fully understands that not every single project they will work on will be one they want to work on.

As if anyone doing research in philosophy wouldn't face similar obstacles. The market is the market.

>>8419087
Anyone have that braggy lit elitist copypasta where he brags about having had "multiple identify crises described as having the depth and profundity of a man twice my age"?

File: 1458999274619.jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>>8416560
>Facts don't matter (cf. Trump)

>>8416560
Nice, another pseudo-intellectual!

>>8418769
Yeah, I got it right in the end, but the way it's presented isn't clear and I'd understand possibly screwing it up. It's isn't immediately clear what "Global Indication" is supposed to mean.