Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Art of Being Right is a fun and small treatise on 38 techniques Schopenhauer identifies to win arguments. It isn’t about exposing the truth. It’s about how to win an argument, particularly when one is wrong. For example (#36): bewilder the opponent by senseless verbiage. (‘I know words, I have the best words.’)

I had to think of this treatise when reading the most popular opinion piece on Fox News right now: Liberals want US to admit all the refugees and pray we don’t get blown up. The piece amazingly ticks off 31 of the 38 techniques to claim being right without actually being right. I want to point them out, mainly for my own amusement and to become a better bullshitter myself. Maybe it’s of some interest to others. This is the entire article, annotated with some new techniques used in every bit.

# The Extension: Exaggerating the scope of your opponent’s position
# The Distinction: (‘no true scotsman…’) point out a subtle difference to defend against a counter-proof
“The mainstream media, liberals and Hollywood are pitching a super-sized hissy fit over President Trump’s decision to protect the fruited plain from blood-thirsty jihadists.” The author claims that outraged media are against protecting US borders, whereas in reality, the outrage is against Trump’s method of protecting those borders. Beside misrepresenting the position, he makes the distinction that his thesis applies only to ‘jihadists’, but further on bashes all ‘refugees’.

# The False Proposition: Ascribe premisses to your opponent, which you then refute
# The Postulation: Defend your point by simply postulating it as the truth
“They seem to think we are under some sort of moral obligation to allow refugees to flood into the country without vetting and pray that nobody gets blown up.” The author presents two statements (‘moral obligation…’ and ‘without vetting…’), the second one of which was never made in practice. Moreover, the author postulates that letting refugees into the country necessarily leads to people getting blown up.

# The Own Authority: Claim your opponent’s point is nonsense
“I write about this very issue in my new book, “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.” I watched in utter amazement this weekend as hordes of agitators swarmed airports across the country – causing all sorts of mayhem.” The author makes it seem as if he is the expert — but publishing doesn’t make one an expert. I am the living proof of that :-)

# The Confused Syllogism: Insert persuasive suggestions into someone’s argument
# The House-Of-Cards: Refute a single premiss to claim everything is wrong
“CNN called the protests “spontaneous” – which is quite remarkable – considering a number of protesters were waving professionally-made banners and posters.” The author suggests that the protests weren’t spontaneous but somehow organized. The suggestion that the protesters had professionally-made banners doesn’t mean the protest wasn’t spontaneous. It bashes CNN on the side, a favorite past-time activity at Fox News.

# The Generalization Of The Specific: Agree on a specific case — use it as if it implies the general case
# The Absurd: Offer a confusing argument, not easily taken apart
“Muslims at DFW International Airport turned a baggage claim area into a makeshift mosque – kneeling on prayer rugs and chanting, “Allah.” And there was nary a peep from TSA or airport officials. But heaven help the poor fellow who tries to go through a TSA check point with a bottle of “Head & Shoulders” in his carry-on luggage.” The author claims that officials always crack down on the common people, yet allow Muslims to do whatever they want. There is not actually a substantial argument here.

# The Homonymy: Using a different meaning of the same word, which you then refute
# The Questionable Category: Discard a statement by pointing to its origin
# The Counter-example: Disprove a universal proposition with a counter-example (even if not actually applicable)
# The Appeal To Authority: Cite (fake, if needed) expert or common knowledge as a premiss to understate your point
“New York Governor Andrew Cuomo lashed out at the president – saying “New Yorkers have no tolerance for intolerance.” New York City Mayor and Communist sympathizer Bill de Blasio said the ban was “chilling to anyone in America who cares about religious liberty.” These are the same guys who tried to shut down a Chick-fil-A franchise and told gun-toting, Bible-clingers they were not welcome in the Empire State. So spare us your righteous indignation. Beside (falsly) qualifying De Blasio as a communist, the author twists the meaning of ‘religious liberty’.” De Blasio talks about the freedom to practice a religion, whereas the author expresses discomfort with how NY is secular (i.e. doesn’t allow Christian religious doctrine to become law). There is thus no actual inconsistency.

# The Metaphor: Choose a figure of speech which favourably underlines your point
“Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel said he plans on hosting illegal aliens in his home and urged citizens to do the same. That’s a mighty thoughtful gesture, but it might be safer for the refugees to eat a slice of deep dish pizza in Syria rather than the Windy City’s South Side.” The author chooses the dehumanizing label ‘illegal aliens’ rather than — for example — calling them ‘newcomers’, as the Mayor’s plans applies to legal immigrants only.

# The Rela-bsolute: Taking a relative statement and making it absolute
# The Interruption: Break off any reasoning that may lead to your defeat
“The mainstream media feared the president was going overboard to protect Christians from radical Islamists, Newsbusters reported. CNN’s Carol Costello, seemed genuinely troubled that his “underlying goal” was “to make this country aggressively Christian.”” The media commented on how Christian refugees are given preferable treatment over Muslim refugees, but this nuance is left out by the author, making it seem as if the media cracks down on Christians.

# The Bombast: Use verbiage to bewilder your opponent
# The Doesn’t-Work-In-Practice: Point out that the theory doesn’t work in practice, thus the theory is wrong
# The Victor: Claim victory, despite just having lost the argument
# The Turn-The-Tables: Use the essence of an argument against the proponent
# The It’s-Simple-Really: Use a simple narrative rather than the nuanced reality
# The Ad-Personam: Use slander to disqualify the opponent
“Failed talk show host Piers Morgan addressed the issue in a bizarre column titled, “More Americans were killed last year by toddlers with guns than by Muslim terrorists, Mr. President – where is the executive order to stop THAT?” “This executive order is not making America great,” Morgan wrote in the Daily Mail. “It’s making America hate.” Mr. Morgan is British. “It is grotesquely unfair because it punishes many decent, law-abiding people who have every right to be in the country,” he added. Piers Morgan is the poster child for extreme vetting.” The author makes no counter-argument whatsoever, instead just defames Morgan to disqualify his arguments (‘failed’, ‘British’, ‘child’). The author, between the lines, seems to claim that Morgan’s ideas are not in line with reality.

# The Concealed Game: Get premisses admitted here-and-there throughout your talk, before making your point
# The Socratic Method: Get premisses admitted by treating (broad) questions
# The Detour: Confuse your opponent by treating points in an illogical order
# The False Dilemma: “If you’re not with me, you’re against me”
# The Conclusion: Claim a conclusion after not necessarily all premisses are admitted
# The Generalization Of The Topic: Divert the topic away from the specific topic at hand, and then refute
# The Diversion: Suddenly start a new argument on wholly new grounds
“Hollywood is even worse – marginalizing Christianity while embracing Islam.” Remember that this article started out about how to secure the borders, and is suddenly about upholding Christianity? The author suggestively discredits the media and Hollywood, saying they clearly want ‘jihadists’ and ‘marginalize Christianity’ in the country, escalating completely from the specific case it’s treating.

# The Ad-Hominem: Find inconsistence between the argument and life of the opponent
# The Bad Counterstrike: Counter a bad argument with a similarly bad argument
“The people who play make believe for a living went out of their way to denounce President Trump during the Screen Actors Guild awards Sunday. “We have to speak up,” actress Emma Stone said. “Staying silent only helps the oppressor, not the victim. Right now I hope that people seeing things that are being done that are unconstitutional and inhumane would say something.” Here’s a thought – next year – hold the SAG awards in downtown Tehran. I hear the Ayatollahs are big Rosie O’Donnell fans.” Paraphrasing, the author says ‘if you like Muslims so much, why don’t you just leave [to a Muslim country]?’. The author uses this strategy to disqualify (and not having to answer to) the valid arguments brought forward by Emma Stone.

This piece has about as much valid arguments as it has a place in serious media. None. #MakeAMediaGreatAgain