(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896.

Schopenhauer's 38 ways to win an argument are:

Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.


Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument.


Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.


Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.


Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.


Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.


State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.


Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.


Use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.
If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.


If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.


If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable in your proposition.


To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him or her an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.


Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.


If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true poposition, as thoug you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he or she suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject a true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your own for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what the opponent accepted. For this, an extreme degree of impudence is required.
When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.


If your opponent presses you with a counter proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.


If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.


Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his or her argument, and you have nothing much to say, try to make the argument less specific.


If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion. Rather draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.


When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its
superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth.


If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.


Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his or her statements. By contractiong your opponent you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the orginal statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits.


This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition and by false inference and distortion of his or her ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears the opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.


If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiciton is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.


A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against him or herself.
Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. Not only will this make the opponent angry, it may be presumed that you put your finger on the weak side of his or her case, and that the opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.


This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.


If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.


Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he or she generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely yourself.
If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.


A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.


You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.


When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.


This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponenent will drop it like a hot potato.


You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If the opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as ife he or she has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him or her some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.


Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way which bad advocates lose a good case. If no accurate proof occurs to the opponent or the bystanders, you have won the day.


A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.


You must login or register to view this content.

Oh hohoho!@@#11!1

This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition and by false inference and distortion of his or her ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears the opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.

I'm going to commit this to memory. I shall never lose an argument again. EVER :yuno:

I've used 1,2,3, and 30, without even knowing before. Some of these are quite clever.

I win, You lose

I would like to point out, while this is a great thread, and I fully intend to like/thank you for this thread as it's an interesting discussion point. Schopenhauer is a bloody moron. As someone who has been a member of multiple debate societies, representing my universities in some cases, most of these "ways to win an argument" are bullshit. They're either logical fallacies our outright disingenuous. I will now demonstrate how wrong this "philosopher" is. When addressing someone from this point on, I'm not addressing Shepleklet but a fictional person using the tactic described (to avoid confusion).


This is known as the Slippery Slope Fallacy and does not cause you to win an argument. It demonstrates that you're incapable of pragmatic thought and not able to argue without taking every point to fantastical limits as such I would dismiss your considerations, turn your point back on to you and make every word you utter seem entirely ludicrous. Someone attempting this tactic with me will likely have the entire lecture hall laughing at them by the end of the debate.



Word games are a common method used by only the most disingenuous people. Often they are used by creationists on YouTube to try and twist what every term is. The only issue with this is, I have a remarkable and extensive vocabulary and a semi-editic memory. I can not only use the words I intend to use with eloquence and flare but I can then define each and every word, explain context, syntax and give synonyms where needed. Anyone stupid enough to use this tactic with me will be laughed out of the lecture hall with the accusation "Sorry, you do speak English right, because you seem to have trouble understanding basic terms. Perhaps you should get a thesaurus and come back when you can more competently convey the meaning behind your ideas and more easily comprehend the meaning of others arguments. We're here to argue the issue, not teach you basic literacy."


This is called a Strawman Fallacy. A child could spot this and it neither makes you look intelligent or cause you to win the argument it just makes you look like the fool who didn't understand the previous speakers premise. Use this on me an I will simply repeat my point slower and clearer until you understand whilst simultaneously insulting your intelligence. If you honestly want to look like a little child go ahead, I find it amusing when people make fools of themselves.



This will not work. Just because I agree with previous points you make does not mean your conclusion is correct or based on any logic or reason. I will proceed after you make your assertion to pull apart your entire argument and explain why you conclusion is entirely irrelevent to your precepts. This will fail, and if done purposely in an attempt to manipulate it will be painfully transparent and I will expose and ridicule you as the liar you are.



I have no beliefs. If I am engaging in a debate my premise will almost alway be irrefutable. This however is the only honest and reasonable tactic so far, however again me, someone who pride himself on being sceptical, rational and openminded, and had no superstitions or religious beliefs, it will be difficult to attempt and even harder to suceed at.



This is the same a point 2 reworded. Schopenhauer clearly wasn't as intelligent as he thought he was.



You cannot trick me by bombarding me with questions. If you ask too many I will simply ask you to slow down and ask the questions in small chunks so I can address them all properly. This is nothing more than an intimidation tactic, and I don't scare easily.



Making me angry won't colour my judgement, all it will do is make me disreguard any respect I held for you at which point I will stop holding back. Your points will not just be disputed but they will be entirely destroyed along with your character as I, in anger, attempt and usually succeed in proving that you are not only wrong but an awful and detestable human being. How do I do this? One secret, we are ALL awful and detestable human beings in some respects and I am very good at highlighting and exposing traits that would make you a laughing stock amongst your peers.



Attempting to confuse me will not work. As arrogant as this may sound, if you're resorting to this tactic, I AM MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU! The fallacy here is called the False Dichotomy. Just because I disagree with your point does not mean I agree with the oposite. There are usually more than two possible answers to any one question and by claiming this is not the case, discounting situations where the choices are clearly given in a binary form, will simply prove that you are closed minded and ignorant which I will then demonstrate destroying your argument entirely.


If you really think I'm stupid enough to accept your conclusion as though I had agreed with it just because I accepted part of your argument, based on nothing more than you arbitrarily stating it as so, you are pitifully stupid. I will not wait for you to ask me if I agree, I will interupt you and tell you I don't agree. I have confidence and will not stand back while someone else speaks on my behalf. The fact that Schopenhauer even suggests this as a way to win an argument shows he never has an argument with anyone with any confidence or willpower. This is pitiful and I will destroy your position in seconds and make you look like a damn child.



As which point I will clarify you position with the correct terms and language so you cannot use a combination of vague terms and fruity language to make your position seem better. If you need to pick your words carefully it's because your argument is flawed.



No I won't. This is just the False Dichotomy again. Try again, this is getting embarrasing now, is Schopenhauer a philosopher or a deeply confused child. Rewording points morph them into new points.



Lie... this tactic is called LYING! I will expose you in seconds. I am neither shy nor stupid, however the same cannot be said for Schopenhauer or the poor fool attempting to bluff me.



Just because I accept that water is wet does not mean I accept that all things wet are water. This is pitiful. Why don't you just tell people to shout loudly until their opponent backs down.



How many times are you going to suggest "play word games". This is getting embarrassing. Is your Schopenhauers entire plan to play word games and lie because if so I've met better philosophers in a primary school playground.


I am louder than you. If we're arguing online, you can't interupt my posts. If we're arguing in person. I'm 6' 6" and over 300lbs, you cannot drown me out, I AM LOUDER THAN YOU! I will finish my point and I will shout you down to do it if I have to, and then I will proceed to assassinate your character for attempting to divert the point in desperation like the coward that you are.



I will simply ask you again. If you can't answer, I've won.



This is exactly the same as you 10th point. You didn't even bother to reword it much. What the hell Schopenhauer, did you need to meet a quota or word limit? Couldn't think of enough points so have to keep repeating yourself. This is actually pathetic now.


This is why you've lost. I only debate when I actually believe the position I'm defending, I'm only concerned with the truth as such none of my points are superficial, and I've already won. If you don't think your position is the truth you've already admitted I'm right, you just haven't said so publicly. I WILL MAKE YOU! This point is nothing more than saying "Lie, you don't care if you're right, you only about winning. Why be honest?" Why? Because you can't prove that an honest person is lying, and if you have to lie to make your point, I will destroy it because your entire argument is false.



At which point I will ask "it begs what question", which you won't be able to answer, I will outright call you a liar on the spot, because you are and I have no compuction with showing this. If you want me to be curtious you will conduct yourself with integrity. How many times is Schopenhauer going to suggest "Lie" as a way of winning an argument, can he now defend a decent position for once. Perhaps budding philosophers would do better taking advice from someone who defended a position that was actually true occationall, because someone who suggest lying all the time, probably had to do this because he was usually f*cking wrong.



"Make your opponant angry", that was point 8 wasn't it? So far, I think you've reworded and recycled the same 5 petty tactics over and over. It's embarrasing.



A faulse syllogism is making out that the argument put forward actually means something else... so this point is "Play word game", which I've already disputed. I feel like I'm talking to a record that's skipping

(PS: For all you younger readers out there, a record is like a CD only bigger)
(PPS: For all you younger readers out there, a CD is like an MP3 player with only about 10-15 songs on it.... that spins)


I don't make generations very often and when I do, I purposely highlight exceptions myself and explain why they are not relevant. This tactic is actually both new and reasonable... except it won't work on me. Well done, you've got another useless tactic, try again.


How many times are you going to suggest "Make your opponant angry"? It's getting tedious now.


Convincing an audience of morons that you've won doesn't mean you have, it just means that stupid people are listening. If I was to debate a creationist in the middle of the Bible Belt of American, chances are most people would side with the creationist because the vast majority of the people in those states have the intelligence of a retarded two year old after they've had their head ventilated with a piece of copper piping. 26% of them still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Just because idiots agree with me doesn't mean you've won... although it may make me leave in disgust and contemplate jumping off a bridge at the realisation that my species barely have the intelligence required to navigate a straight corridor, so if you equate winning with "convincing your opponant that the debate is a waste of time because the audience are currently eating the wallpaper" well, good for you.


I will respond with "What does that have to do with the topic at hand", and when you can't answer I'll tell you to stop changing the subject and respond. If you insist I will assume you cannot respond and accept my victory unless you have an actual argument which if you're attempting this you clearly don't.


You even state the name of the fallacy "Appeal To Authority" in the beginning of this point. I'm not going to bother explaining why this is pathetic. At this point anyone still reading has surely come to the conclusion that Schopenhauer is a rutting moron.



This doesn't even make sense. It's like when people call a suggestion in American politics "Socialism" even when it's not and people immediately shut up. My response will be, to quote Coughlan666 off YouTube "So c*nting-well-bastarding what?!". So what if this idea is "Socialism", it doesn't make a blind bit of difference now either make an argument or shut the hell up.



OK... and I'll ask you why you deny my conclusion and the debate continues. I fail to see how this wins the debate, if anything this is a standard opening statement. Schopenhauer clearly wasn't a philosopher, based on these points it seems more likely that he was an escaped mental patient with head trauma.



This is the first, and only decent, honest point in this entire list. I not only support this but actively do this myself when I engage in a debate. However, for this to work the other person has to avoid giving direct answers. I, if possible, always give direct answers.


I never drop my position because of my motive because my motive is always "because I think I'm right and I'm defending my position". I never (and I mean that) argue for any other reason, such as political gain or personal vendetta. I may occationally enter a debate on the opposite side in order to make the points clearer in which case I will make it apparent that I'm arguing as "Devil's Advocate" in order to expose common arguments against the point I support. This method only works on dishonest people.


Again, this is a repeat of an earlier argument "confuse your opponent". I'm not easily confused. This will not work on me. As arrogant as it sound, I'm actually rather intelligent you can't bewilder me with choice language, I actually speak English.


I don't choose "faulty proof". I enter into an arguement knowing what I'm talking about. If I don't know enough about the subject I don't join in the argument. This has the effect of making me look like I'm always right, but actually I just never speak out unless I actual know what the hell I'm talking about and can defend my position properly.


This fallacy is quire possibly the most well know latin phrase on the internet, Ad Hominem. If you can't attack my position, attacking me will do you no good. I have exception self-esteem and self-respect, you cannot make me look any more foolish than I make myself look. I will admit when I wrong, I will laugh at my own failings. I openly admit my sexuality, my social class, my lack of income and the fact that I never finished University... twice, and will opely explain why. I care not if you insult my appearance, and have no issues or emotional failings on the fact that I'm overweight. You CANNOT INSULT ME! I insult myself more harshly than you would even be prepared to go without outright lying at which point you've already lost. If you're doing this you are a pathetic and pitiful person who has no stills in debate or discussion and who's level of intellect is far beneath anything I need concern myself with.

As a point, while I may well insult, degrade or condescend my opponent when I feel their character is deserving of disrespect and/or ridicule I do it AS WELL as arguing against their position. It's only an Ad Hominem if you ONLY insult the opponant.



In conclusion Schopenhauer is a bloody idiot, and so is anyone who uses all but one of the tactics listed here. Hopefully this response was enlightening and at least a little entertaining. A warning to future "philosophers"... I'm watching you. Don't f*ck up :evil:

I wouldn't want to get in an argument with Tornado.. :p

or ill do what I keep on doing to my older sister
"No, No, Nop Shut UP! I won!" She tries to prove her point "shit get over it..."