As is always the case when you are trying to win, the major thing to look for is audience reaction. Try to determine the extent to which your objector has been successful in breaching your defense. What particular points of yours were most easily overwhelmed, which remained steadfast and resisted all assaults, and, especially, which were ignored by the opposition? Sometimes ignoring a particular point or points is symptomatic of the opposition’s inability to overcome it or the opposition’s recognition that the point is so formidable it is best to call as little attention to it as possible.
Your evaluation of what worked and what did not work with the audience should determine what you choose to emphasize, what you choose to ignore, and what new elements you should introduce into your defense.
Successful Defense:
First Stage: repulsion of specific charges and assaults on your initial presentation
Second Stage: attack on the alternatives
This is especially important if the first stage of your defense has not been as successful as you would have liked.
Most arguments are won by showing that one side is better on balance, that is, has more assets and fewer liabilities. However, if your original or first-stage defense has been successful, or if during the second stage of your defense you become successful, then an attack on the alternative position becomes a way of annihilating the enemy and winning the argument. In short, not only is your position defensible, but theirs is not
Never Admit Defeat
If the audience detects a feeling of low morale in you, then it will immediately assume your opponent has won. There are several things you might do—for example, sit with your hands folded, avoid squirming, laugh louder than anyone else when he makes a joke, smile, take notes but not too many and take no notes at the end
Refuse to Be Convinced
If we give up because the opposition appears to be right, we inevitably discover after it is too late that we were really right in the first place. How often have you thought of an adequate answer and rebuttal after the debate was over?
Retain Your Self-Confidence
Do Not Underestimate the Opposition
A Defense is Also an Attack
You attack not only to show that the opposition’s argument is merely persuasive in a superficial way but also to give yourself more time to think of a reply in defending your own case. But at all times, give the impression that you are in charge of the argument.
Counterattack
Every defense must have a counterattack, that is, a refutation of the charges made against your case by the opposition. Needless to say, not every attack against your case will contain every kind of charge, so you will have to choose from the following techniques, depending upon what your opponent uses. Often enough, you will not have to address every charge against your case, and indeed you will need to economize your time.
Statement of Your Case
There is one thing you should always claim no matter what the opposition has said, namely, that the opposition has misstated your case. No matter what the opposition has said, you should make this claim because
(a) if the opposition has misstated your case because it misunderstood your case, then by implication the opposition might not be very bright;
(b) if the opposition has misstated your case but understands your case very well, then by implication the opposition is dishonest;
(c) this gives you the opportunity to restate your case, and you want to restate your case so as
(1) to reinforce in the minds of the audience what you want to discuss;
(2) to reformulate your case in order to sidestep some of the objections made, a point we shall see in greater detail below; and finally
(3) to give yourself a little more time before you reply.
All-or-Nothing Mistake
Since one major way in which a case is attacked is to extend it to an extreme (a point we made earlier), you must be prepared to offset this kind of tactic if it is used against you. If you did not make a generalization or categorical statement and your opponent accuses you of having done so, then reiterate the more modest case you were presenting. In addition, imply that your opponent is so intent upon seeing every issue as clearly black and white that he misses all the subtleties and nuances of your argument.
Appeal to Ignorance
As long as nobody can show that you are absolutely mistaken, then act as if you are absolutely right. Keep harping upon the fact that some things you said, even if they are trivial, are right and that the opposition cannot disprove your case.
Statistics
if he accuses you of not using a random, a representative, or an adequate sample, you counter this by asking him to define what a random sample is.
He will be unable to define a random sample because no one, not even the most sophisticated statistical analyst, has been able to define a random sample. The reason for this is interesting and worth dwelling upon.
if your opponent attacks the use of statistics in general, you may provide a counterexample to show how silly that would be.
Defense of Generalizations
Your generalizations are attacked when someone tries to point out an exception to them. There are three answers to this charge.
the exception may be irrelevant to the point you are trying to make
you may claim that the exception is not really an exception and accuse your opponent of special pleading.
You argue that the grounds on which he claims to make an exception (attacks based on the charges of accident or division) are not good grounds
Example:
For example, during the 1970 trial of Black Panther leader Bobby Seale, William Sloan Coffin, then chaplain at Yale University, argued that Seale should not be tried, convicted, and punished even if he were guilty, because society had been responsible for making him a criminal. This is an exception by genetic explanation. You might argue that this is special pleading. Would Coffin want to release a Southern racist who led a lynch mob on the grounds that society (in the form of Reconstruction) had caused this man to become a kind of criminal? To argue for the genetic explanation in one case and not in the other is to be guilty of special pleading.
fall back on the wise saying that “the exception proves the rule” and hope for the best. This, by the way, implies (but don’t tell anyone about it) that the more exceptions there are, the better the rule is.
In Defense of Definitions
Defenses can be challenged as being either too strict or too permissive in the sense of being unusual.
If you are charged with taking terms too narrowly, and especially if you are charged with making your position true by definition, then reply that we must have clear thoughts, otherwise equivocation will be the undoing of us all. Enter into a tirade about how your opponent is a sloppy thinker who objects to those who strive for clarity.
Quoting Out of Context
Like any other charge, this one should be denied and continually denied. Keep insisting that the words you quoted are exactly as you said they were, that is, you ignore the charge that you quoted out of context and pretend that you were charged with misquoting.
“If I quote the sentence, then he will say I did not quote the whole paragraph, and if I quote the whole paragraph, then he will say that I deliberately ignored the preceding or following paragraphs, until finally I shall have to end up quoting everything written in the English language—or is that too small a context?”
Inconsistency
If you are accused of being inconsistent, by all means deny it.
simple misunderstanding may be involved, and you can easily clear it up.
there may be no problem at all, and the accusation is merely an attempt on the part of the opposition to embarrass you. In this case, you should point it out and publicly chastise the opposition.
there may very well be an overlooked inconsistency. In this case, you should confidently move to reinterpret what you said so as to make the contradiction disappear.
Depending upon the situation and the audience, there may be times when inconsistency is not a bad thing. After all, is not a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds? All right, then, we are inconsistent. So what of it?
Red Herring
what happens if you feel that your defense has not been strong enough or that there are lingering doubts in the minds of the audience? At this point, you should avoid sticking to the point. Remember that the only thing that always sticks to the point is a dead insect on display. What you must do is draw attention to a side issue where you feel particularly strong. This will give the impression that you are still in charge of the course of the discussion.
although it is a side issue, it must be related at least indirectly to the issue you are discussing, otherwise the audience will not accept it.
the issue you introduce must have sufficient emotional appeal to catch attention immediately.
you must make sure that you present this issue in such a way that you and the audience inevitably end up on the same side, while your opponent ends up on the other side
Calls for Perfection
your case or proposal may be a good one, but it may not be perfect. That is, there may be problems or objections to it that cannot be satisfactorily answered. This, however, does not imply that your solution is not the best available. There are times when it is necessary to admit that there are objections, but they do not invalidate your proposal. Accuse your opposition of wanting perfection or Utopia before they will accept any proposal.
Nothing-But Objections
A variation of the call for perfection is the simple articulation of objections. The problem is not whether my proposal is perfect, but whether it would be better to do nothing or even whether there is an alternative.
Less Sincere Version:
Here we argue that even though our proposal is not perfect, we should all adopt it anyway because no one can think of a better one.
More Sincere Version:
There, as is so often the case in life’s great moral dilemmas, we must choose between two evils and hope that we choose the lesser. It is very important in cases like this that they involve two clear and evil courses of action with no other alternatives.
Damning the Dilemma
The first way of answering a dilemma is to grasp one or the other horn. We do this by rejecting the truth of one or the other conditional statements. (A conditional statement is of the “if…then” form.)
go between the horns, that is, to reject the second premise as not providing mutually exclusive alternatives.
the most beautiful.
Just as a dilemma was a very effective rhetorical device to end a series of objections, so a counter-dilemma is a beautiful and effective way of dismissing the whole case of the opposition.
First, look at the structure of the previous dilemma (above) and then note how a simple change below provides a foolproof formula for constructing a counter-dilemma:
If…S1…then…not…S4; and if…S3,…then…not S2. S1 or S3. Therefore, not-S4 or not-S2.
In other words, we have reversed the order of S2 and S4 and negate them
Appeal to Self-Interest
Just as in your presentation you pointed out some residual benefits of accepting your point of view, so in the defense of your presentation against your opponent’s attacks you may repeat the appeal.
Winning the Argument
Damning the Alternative
if your opponent explicitly offers an alternative, attack it
if your opponent has only an implicit position, bring his case out into the open and attack it;
if he fails to offer any alternative, then argue that there is no acceptable alternative to your position because, if there were one, then your opponent would have offered it. Thus you win by default.
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Any shortcoming of your position that cannot be defended can still be justified by pointing out the errors or shortcomings of the opposition.
you are claiming that certain apparent liabilities are really justified or caused by the errors of the opposition.
Ad Hominem
Appeal to Ignorance
we argue that because the opposition cannot prove its case, our case must be true by default
This technique is especially useful against any new idea or suggestion to adopt some policy that has never been tried before. If an idea has never been tried before, then obviously no one really knows if it is or will be a good one. Therefore, since we cannot prove it is good, it must be bad.
Invincible Ignorance and Falsification
you accuse your opponent of clinging to principles or beliefs that he
(a) accepts uncritically,
(b) refuses to debate, and
(c) offers no criteria for refutation or falsifiability.
The last criterion, falsifiability, is critical. It is almost a definition of rationality to say that a man is rational to the extent that he will tell you under what circumstances he will change his mind. To know when a belief will be considered false is to know how to reason with someone who holds that belief. It is a mark of psychosis that someone will not under any circumstances change his mind. To expose your opponent as one who holds this kind of belief is to undermine the audience’s tolerance of him as a rational person.
Most people, of course, if given enough time and help, could specify when they would consider their beliefs disconfirmed. However, most people never really think about this point. You should take advantage of this lapse in attention and frequently charge your opponent with invincible ignorance. You will be surprised how often it will work.
Appeal to Force or Fear (Ad baculum)
pointing out the dire consequences that will follow the adoption of his proposal. Here you are appealing to fear by threatening the audience.
In arguments involving human behavior, one interesting element introduced into predictions of dire consequences is the possible threat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You not only predict the dire consequence but intimate in the most tactful way that you might even bring such a dire consequence about if your position is not adopted.
Abandon Discussion
If you are absolutely convinced that you have overwhelmed your opponent, then you should cut off debate as soon as possible. To pursue the discussion beyond the point at which you have clearly won is to give your opponent an opportunity he does not deserve; it is to risk throwing away your victory; and it is to lend credibility to your opponent’s case. Once you have won, cut off the discussion by saying something like, “What is the point in arguing with someone who is so plainly wrong?”
Going for A Tie
Do Not Admit Defeat
three possible stages of your position
(a) you are completely right;
(b) you are mostly right, but your position needs a few qualifications and corrections;
(c) you knowingly defended a weak position in order to dramatically call attention to a useful underlying principle.
True by Definition
You can always save your position by making it true by definition. This is not a victory. When you are forced to use this technique as a form of defense, it always leaves the audience with the impression that your position was trivial and the argument almost a waste of time.
Forestalling Disagreement
your opponent really agrees with your position. Thus there is no real argument and no real disagreement. This tactic is so surprising to some people that when, after having demolished their opponent, they find him claiming that everybody is in agreement, they then fall right into the trap of being nice. Usually, it is people who are “interested in the truth” who fall into it.
Invitation
When you see that you cannot do anything else, give a summary of the progress of the argument, including the positions of both sides. Make this summary as positive and as friendly as possible. Organize it so that it looks as progressive as possible, that is, as if the argument has been heading progressively in a certain direction almost by prearrangement. Conclude with the remark that we have not come to the end or final determination, and issue an invitation to your opponent to join you in the common search for the truth.