THE NEW ART OF BEING RIGHT:

38 Ways to Win an Argument in Today’s World

by Min Liu

http://www.artofverbalwar.com

© 2016 Art of Verbal War. All Rights Reserved.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One - Introduction

Welcome
What Is "Dialectic"?
The Framework for Arguments
Setting the Table
Chapter Two - The 38 Strategies
Chapter Three - Conclusion and Special Bonus
How to Defend Yourself From Dialectic
Special Bonus Announcement
Chapter Four - About the Author
 CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

Welcome to THE NEW ART OF BEING RIGHT: 38 Ways to Win an

Argument in Today’s World!

This book is a reboot of Arthur Schopenhauer’s 1831 classic treatise “The Art
of Being Right”, a book I had purchased online. As a corporate attorney, I
purchased the book because I’m always looking for ways to sharpen my
sword. I couldn’t wait to read it! However, because I opted for the physical
book and the free shipping option, the book took quite the circuitous route to
get to me. Not only did it take me a long time to receive the book, but even
after I received it, it was a difficult read and it took me a long time to fully
grasp the messages inside. Sure, I may be a little dense, but after multiple
attempts, I was finally able to digest Schopenhauer’s tome.

There is a plethora of useful knowledge in Schopenhauer’s book, so I decided

to rework it in order to make it easier to understand and more relevant for
the modern era, an era that is close to 200 years after his original version was
published. I even solved the slow shipping problem, because this book is
Kindle only (for now)!

If we can’t comprehend Schopenhauer’s valuable strategies, it would be

impossible to make use of them. Therefore, in this book, Schopenhauer’s
stratagems (as he called them) are rewritten into modern, and most importantly,
layperson language and whittled down into bite sized pieces. You know those
wordy philosophers!

In addition to summarizing his strategies into easy-to-understand language, I

also added a few more contemporary examples of the strategies since
Schopenhauer either did not provide examples for many of the strategies or the
examples he used were too dated for anybody who is not a historian to
understand almost 200 years later.

I also added commentary to some of the strategies explaining their usage and
my assessment as to their usefulness in today’s world.

I am doing this because there is great value in some of Schopenhauer’s

strategies, but his writing style shrouded them in unnecessarily complex and
obscure language. I want people to be able to easily understand and make use
of his strategies in the numerous battlegrounds they face in life today. The goal
of The New Art of Being Right is to “lift the shroud” for you.

For Schopenhauer and his contemporaries, the battlegrounds they did battle on
were in person and face-to-face. I imagine Schopenhauer and his philosopher
friends (and frenemies, or whatever they were called back then) heatedly
debating various topics at coffee houses all across Europe in the early 1800s.
Perhaps they also faced off in town-hall environments standing behind podiums
and in front of large audiences debating the issues of the age and time.

However, the battlegrounds of modern society are now quite different. While
people still debate in the same ways as Schopenhauer and his contemporaries
did to an extent, people today also argue and battle each other online. They
battle wits in online forums, website comment areas, they tweet and retweet
each other and they even engage people who didn’t ask for a fight! On top of
that, a lot of these battles are done anonymously.

In addition, it seems like every time you try to do anything online, you also
have to worry about and deal with keyboard jockeys and trolls, as they are a
fact of life these days. They weren’t called trolls back in Schopenhauer’s day
and they weren’t online, but Schopenhauer already had a term for a troll’s
favorite activity two hundred years ago (see Strategy #38)!

The counter to Strategy #38: Don’t feed the trolls!

You see, the strategies are still relevant, very relevant. Only the battlegrounds,
participants, topics, and dynamics have changed. Schopenhauer wouldn’t be
able to foresee the technologies we have nor the society we live in today, but
the “art of being right” is just as relevant, if not more important, now than ever.

This book is imperative in today’s world, much more so than in

Schopenhauer’s time. Without delving too deep into politics, we live in an era
of victimization and political correctness where it is almost impossible to say
the “right” thing. You are just a keystroke or an uttering away from being
attacked by underhanded arguments or unwarranted accusations.

We also live in an era where you can face attacks multiple times a day from
strangers across the globe, and this fight can be brought to you even if you
aren’t seeking one out. If you want to do anything online, in business, in the
workplace, or even in social interactions with people, you must know how to
skillfully debate others and defend yourself from others; by others, I mean
haters.

And sometimes you need to know when to ignore!

You certainly need to learn how to use these techniques in order to be “right”,
but maybe even more importantly, you need to learn to defend yourself from
these techniques being used against you, so you do not end up in the “wrong”.
Knowledge of these tricks is imperative both from an offensive and defensive
perspective, and because of the world we now live in, I consider knowledge
of these techniques an essential life skill.

Believe it or not, this essential life skill is not logic. Sure, you need logic a lot
of the time, but that’s not all you need. “The Art of Being Right” was not about
logic. Instead, this book focuses on what Schopenhauer called “dialectic”, the
art of debating to win, a field of knowledge that disregards logic and is
dedicated to defeating it.

If you are looking for a book on logic, you should ask for a refund from
Amazon because this is not the book for you. However, if you want to learn
how to win arguments, then let’s get started!

Cheers,
Min
 ********************************

DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus

SUBSCRIBE to my Youtube channel, The Art of Verbal War, where people

learn to EXCEL in verbal skills at www.youtube.com/artofverbalwar

CONTACT me at info@artofverbalwar.com

********************************
 What Is "Dialectic"?

So, what exactly is “dialectic”? It’s not someone who lacks the capacity to
produce insulin. I know “dialectic” sounds a bit like a medical term, but the
word and its definition is crucial knowledge.

Apparently, at some point in history the term “dialectic” was understood by

people to mean “logic”. However, “dialectic” started meaning something else
around the time of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 1700s, who
started using the term “dialectic” as a term for something darker.

This book is about this darker type of “dialectic”, the darker arts of
“sophistry”. And what is sophistry? According to Wikipedia, sophistry is a
“subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of
reasoning”.

In order to avoid debate over the meaning of the term “dialectic”,

Schopenhauer coined a new phrase to describe what The Art of Being Right
was about, which is “Controversial Dialectic”; in other words, Controversial
Dialectic is “the art of disputing in such a way to hold one’s own”.

The truth is: You can be completely right and logical about something, but
come off completely “wrong” in front of others if you do not know how to
argue to your advantage, and your opponent can also be in the right and
completely logical, but if you are skilled in Controversial Dialectic, you can
make your opponent come off “wrong”.

To Schopenhauer, logic is important, but it isn’t enough. You need to learn

how to “hold your own” and that’s where Controversial Dialectic comes into
play. This book is about the latter part of that equation.

Schopenhauer’s view of human nature is cynical but realistic. Even when we

are faced with truth, it is human nature to continue trying to “win”. Our
opponents have the same nature, and so any realist will realize he/she needs to
master “Controversial Dialectic”.
Most people are not deficient in logic (okay, maybe that’s not true, but that’s
not the point), but most people are not naturals at dialectic. If you have realized
this and this is why you are reading this book, I applaud you.

Logic is concerned about getting to the absolute truth while dialectic is

concerned about defeating logic. We have to separate trying to find absolute
truth from winning acceptance for what we are saying. Winning acceptance for
that we are saying is the aim of dialectic. We do not usually know where
objective truth lies, so you need to see that there is nothing wrong with learning
and using dialectic.

You may even desire to be straightforward in your dealings with others, but
you need to accept that if you don’t use dialectic to your advantage, it will
most certainly be used against you to your detriment. If you disagree with this
opinion, this book may not be for you.

The bottom line is: Even if we do not want to use “dishonest” strategies in
trying to achieve our aims, we cannot deny that at a minimum, it is absolutely
crucial to learn these strategies so they cannot be used AGAINST us.
Whatever you decide to do with the strategies in this book is up to you, but I
hope you will use this information responsibly.

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)
 The Framework of Arguments

According to Schopenhauer, there are three modes of refuting your opponent’s

argument:

1) Ad rem: arguing against what is being discussed at the time;

2) Ad hominem: arguing against your opponent rather than the position they
are maintaining; and

3) Ex concessis: a type of ad hominem attack where you attack your

opponent’s position not by attacking their premises or conclusion, but by
pointing out that your opponent sometimes acts in ways that are inconsistent
with their position, or that they hold (or previously held) views that are
inconsistent with their position, or that they associate with people who act in
such ways or hold such views.

Once you have chosen a mode of refutation, there are two courses that you may
pursue in carrying out that mode of refutation:

1) Direct refutation: attacking the reasons for the opponent’s conclusion; and

2) Indirect refutation: attacking the conclusion itself, that the conclusion

cannot be true.

Under direct refutation, you can either show that the reasons themselves are
incorrect or that the conclusion does not follow from the reasons given.

Under indirect refutation, you can either use a diversion or an “instance to the
contrary” (i.e. an exception to the conclusion). Here’s an illustration of the
entire framework:
This framework is important because even if you forget every single one of the
38 strategies that you are about to learn, this simple framework is always
something you can internalize and use to attack any argument you may
encounter. I highly suggest you memorize this framework and carry it with you
at top of mind at all times.
 Setting the Table

One final thing before we get to the main course:

In the Art of Being Right (or perhaps in the English translations of the original
German text), Schopenhauer inconsistently and interchangeably uses certain
words that I feel confuse matters, so before we get to the 38 strategies, here are
a few definitions:

1. Where you see the words “premises” or “arguments”, what we mean are the
reasons that support a conclusion, thesis, or result.

2. A conclusion, thesis, or result is what follows from premises, arguments,

and reasons.
Now that we are clear, let’s get on to the 38 strategies!

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)
 CHAPTER TWO
The 38 Strategies

Introduction to the 38 Strategies

Schopenhauer was very clear that his 38 strategies were not meant for the
purpose of discovering truth. The reality is that most of the time, participants in
a debate or an argument don’t actually know the truth of the matter. All debates
end up either being supported by either genuine arguments and/or “spurious”
arguments, which are apparently, but not actually valid arguments.

In the times we live in, for better or for worse, most debates that people
engage in are supported primarily or solely by “spurious arguments”.

This section will go over the 38 types of these “spurious arguments” that
Schopenhauer identified. Schopenhauer calls them “tricks” but for the purposes
of this book, let’s just call them strategies.

So, here they are, the 38 “ways to be right”:

 1. The Extension

This strategy is a dual strategy of (i) exaggerating your opponent’s conclusion

beyond its natural limits and (ii) narrowing your own conclusion as much as
possible. By doing this, you open up your opponent’s conclusion to many
possible attacks and limit the objections that can be brought up against your
conclusion.

Example: As of the time of the writing this book, Johnny Manziel, the former
Heisman Trophy winner, was recently cut from his NFL team because he was
involved with alcohol related incidents and an alleged girlfriend beating
incident.

Your opponent argues: “Manziel should still get a chance to come back to the
NFL”. You argue back: “So what you’re saying is no matter what crime he
commits, whether DUIs, assault, even murder, that doesn’t matter?” This is
called “exaggerating your opponent’s conclusion”.

Or, if you were the one arguing that Manziel should continue to get chances to
play in the NFL, you would argue “As long as Manziel isn’t killing people, he
has a right to make a living”. This is called “narrowing your own conclusion”.

Note: This is a very crucial strategy, one of the most useful strategies in the
book. Not all of the 38 strategies are useful, but this definitely is one of them.

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)
 2. The Homonymy

Extend a conclusion to something unrelated to your opponent’s conclusion

except for the similarity of the words in a conclusion, and then refute the new
conclusion while claiming you have refuted your opponent’s original
conclusion.

“Homonymy” is the relation between words with identical forms but different
meaning.

Example: “I think Trump will win this presidential race” -> “That’s right,
Hillary will trump him”

Note: This strategy only works in spoken contexts and is generally easily
detected by your opponent and refuted, so I do not consider this a generally
useful strategy. I say this tongue in cheek, but it just might work if you debating
someone with attention deficit disorder or a corpse.
 3. Generalize Your Opponent’s Specific Statements

Take your opponent’s conclusion as though he/she said it applies generally in

all situations and point out that it doesn’t in the hope that the generalization
negates your opponent’s conclusion.

Example: If your opponent says “Trump’s immigration policy is actually quite

practical”, you can respond by saying “Um, Trump would by no means be a
practical president. I can’t believe you’re saying that!”

Your opponent did not actually say that Trump would be a practical president,
but the extrapolation from your opponent’s statement makes him/her look a
little stupid. If your opponent is sharp, he/she will point out that he/she did not
say that. Keep this in mind because other people may try to use this strategy
against you.

Note: In other words, what you are doing is, in a way, misinterpreting your
opponent’s conclusion in order to refute their conclusion. Keep in mind this
strategy is only somewhat effective because it is somewhat easy to see through.
Having said that, make sure you don’t let yourself get caught by this strategy.

This is indeed true, but the real idiot is the one who doesn’t realize his/her
arguments have been generalized.
 4. Conceal Your Game

This strategy isn’t about a specific turn of phrase you can use, but more of an
overall roadmap of how you can get your opponent to concede to your
conclusion.

Don’t draw your conclusion until the right time. Instead, like setting a trap for
your opponent to walk into, get the premises necessary to your conclusion
admitted by your opponent one by one first. At the right time, get your
opponent to admit your conclusion. By concealing your game, your opponent
doesn’t know where you are going with your premises or what you are trying
to conclude.
 5. False Premises

Use false premises to get to the conclusion you want. You do this because your
opponent may not believe the premises you believe to be true, or he/she
refuses to accede to the conclusion you want to get to using your premises. So,
you use the premises your opponent wants to hear to get to the conclusion you
want.

Note: I don’t recommend the use of this strategy. It’s not difficult for people to
see through false premises. However, knowledge of this strategy is important
since your opponent may try to pull a fast one on you. Make sure you are aware
when other people are employing this strategy.
 6. Postulate What Has to be Proved

This is called “setting the table”. You take control of what needs to be proved
by framing the question in a way that favors you. This is done by assuming as a
fact something that cannot actually be disproven. This is a very useful strategy.

Example: The issue du jour during the writing of this book is whether Apple is
required by law to find a way for the FBI into a terrorist’s iPhone. Instead of
arguing that Apple is required to hack the iPhone due to some technicality of
law, one would first try to get his/her opponent to concede that innocent people
should be protected (which is harder to argue against).
 7. Yield Admissions Through Questions

This is yet another strategy that isn’t about a specific turn of phrase you can
use, but more of an overall roadmap of how you can get your opponent to
concede to your conclusion.

Use wide-reaching questions, preferably in a quick firing manner, to arrive at a

conclusion. This is also called the “Socratic Method”, something I’m quite
familiar with from my three years I spent in law school.

Note: Ideally, you carry out this strategy without your opponent seeing where
you are going, i.e. what conclusion you are trying to reach. This is not a
beginner’s strategy. This method is useful because it allows both parties to talk
about an issue without unnecessary conflict. It can help the other person see
your perspective without the conflict, and therefore, this makes it one of the
most useful strategies in the entire book, as we all know the Socratic Method
has withstood the test of time.

Example: Assume your girlfriend is angry about you coming home late one
night. She says, "You didn't call me! We’re you out at the bar hitting on girls?”
You could respond, "No I wasn’t!” However, this response may end up in you
two endlessly butting heads.

Instead, by using questions you can dial down the aggressiveness of the debate.
You can ask her “Why are you upset? What do you think I was doing? Is it that
I’m late that bothers you or is it because you don’t trust me?”
 8. Make Your Opponent Angry

This is not a specific turn of phrase or a roadmap, but a dirty tactic to use
while in the middle of a debate with another person.

Make your opponent angry, hopefully repeatedly angry, by being rude or

deceitful. By getting him/her angry, he/she loses or reduces her ability to
reason.
 9. Questions in Detouring Order

Again, this is another strategy isn’t about a specific turn of phrase you can use,
but more of an overall roadmap of how you can get your opponent to concede
to your conclusion.

This strategy is similar to Strategy #7, but with the order of questions used in a
way that further camouflages the conclusion you are trying to reach. Instead of
trying to work in a logical order, you use a “detouring” order to make it even
harder for your opponent to detect where you are going with the questions.

Note: This is not a beginner’s strategy. You will have to practice this strategy
over time, but if you develop some skill in it, it can be a very powerful
strategy.
 10. Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer

If your opponent refuses to admit to or say yes to your questions, ask the
questions in the opposite way. In modern times, we call this strategy “flipping
the script”.

Example: Instead of “Do you want to buy this product?” ask “Do you want to
miss out on this opportunity?”

Note: Some people prefer saying ”yes” and some people love to say “no”. If
you want a naysayer to agree, you cannot give them a question where “yes” is
the answer you want.

Instead, reverse the question so that if they disagree, they effectively agree
with you. Using this strategy will require knowledge of the other person and
some confidence that they are wedded strongly to their default responses, so
this is not a strategy that works on all people.

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)
 11. Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases

Again, this is another strategy isn’t about a specific turn of phrase you can use,
but more of an overall roadmap of how you can get your opponent to concede
to your conclusion.

If you opponent has admitted certain specific facts, don’t ask him/her to admit
a conclusion from those facts immediately. You need to wait for the right
moment to introduce a conclusion, and when you do, you need to do it as if it
were a foregone conclusion.
 12. Choose Metaphors Favorable to your Proposition

Frame your opponent or their argument in a way that makes them look bad, and
makes you look good. Generally, the person setting the frame first has an
advantage because the other person will have to react to the frame that’s been
set. So, try to move first and set a frame using appropriate metaphors. The
wittier the better, and the harder it will be for your opponent to shake the
frame.

Example: Your opponent and you are arguing about something and he/she
makes a statement that doesn’t appear to have any basis in fact. You call his
statement “Donald Trump accurate”. Donald Trump is known for making bold
yet inaccurate statements, and so the metaphor is a tough one to swim against.
 13. Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition

When you try to get your opponent to accept your argument, give him/her a
counterargument to consider at the same time. However, frame the
counterargument in the most extreme and unflattering way as possible so he/she
has no choice but to accept the argument you wanted them to accept all along.

Example: “You can take this car home today or you can risk somebody else
getting this one-time bargain before you come back.”

Another example of this strategy should be familiar to those of you who are
parents. You give your child two options to choose from, both which are
framed to your advantage. One option is the one you want your child to choose,
and the other is an option that has been framed to be unappealing. A little
devious? Yes, but don’t shoot the messenger.

Note: When we offer somebody two choices (your argument and a

counterargument), we appear quite fair. However, by limiting the choices to
only the choices we have decided ourselves, even though there may be other
choices available, we introduce a bias that makes the other choice look pale in
comparison. This is a very useful strategy.
 14. Claim Victory Despite Defeat

This sounds a bit like the “Baghdad Bob” strategy during the 2003 Iraq war
and is not a turn of phrase, but a tactic to use on the road towards victory.

Basically when your opponent has not agreed to your propositions or premises,
you still claim victory by stating that your conclusion has been made. By doing
so, your opponent is distracted from the actual subject matter itself and has to
fight an uphill battle against an impression that you have already won.

Note: When you do this, you must proclaim your victory as boldly as
possible. This strategy won’t always work, but you are basically hoping your
opponent is shy, stupid, or inattentive. Obviously, this won’t work if your
opponent is none of those things.
 15. Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions

Should you have trouble getting to the conclusion you want, use an absurd
argument that is actually true but not acceptable. The absurd argument doesn’t
even have to be related to the matter at hand. You are trying to trick your
opponent into rejecting them. When he/she rejects them, you point out his/her
absurdity. If he/she accepts your absurd arguments, you then have reason on
your side.

Note: I’m not sure whether this strategy is valuable or not. Any opponent with
half a brain can see right through it.
 16. Arguments Ad Hominem or Ex Concessis

Attack the person instead of the position they are maintaining. There are a few
ways to do this:

“Ad Hominem” means to attack the person.

“Ex Concessis” means to attack your opponent’s position by pointing out that
he/she acts in ways that could be construed as inconsistent with his/her
position, or that he/she holds (or previously held) views that could be
construed as inconsistent with their current position. You can even attack the
other person by associating them with people who act in ways inconsistent
with your opponent’s position.

Example: ”It’s incredibly ironic and somewhat hypocritical to hear you spout
environmentalist arguments. After all, you drive an Escalade, and your wife
has a Hummer.” By engaging in an ad hominem attack, you draw attention away
from the actual debate at hand.

Note: Ad hominem or ex concessis attacks are a bit dirty, but are incredibly
useful when your arguments on the merits are weak. Sadly, these types of
attacks make up the majority of online debates these days, so you have to learn
how to use these strategies whether you like them or not, and when they are
used against you, you need to learn how to redirect the attacks back to the
matter at hand.
 17. Defense Through Subtle Distinction

When your opponent makes devastating arguments against you, look for subtle
distinctions that undermine his/her arguments.

Example: To make use of this strategy, you need to “get into the details” of
what you are talking about to find ways to make distinctions from the
conclusion that has been made.

An example is this strategy would be: “Yes, the Warriors will beat the Bulls’
all time regular season record, but the Bulls played in a different time. Under
the hand check rules that were allowed back then, the Warriors would have had
no chance in that era.”

Note: This is one of the most useful strategies of all time and one you should
always keep at top of mind.
 18. Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute

This is not a turn of phrase, but more of a defensive tactic to be used in the heat
of battle.

If you sense your opponent is about to win an argument, don’t let him/her reach
a conclusion. Instead, interrupt the argument and divert his/her attention from
the conclusion that he/she was about to make.

Note: You may come off looking poorly doing this, so use this tactic sparingly
and only when necessary. However, be very wary of others using it against you
and call it out if you witness it happening. Direct the argument back to the issue
at hand.
 19. Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against It

When you don’t have any arguments against a specific point of your opponent,
speak to something general instead, such as the “fallibility of human
knowledge” and claim therefore, that’s why his/her point cannot be accepted.
The best kind of “general” matters are things that are hard for your opponent to
argue against. Of course “human knowledge” is fallible. If your opponent does
not realize this is a trick, he/she may get caught up in it like an unsuspecting
fish swimming by a fishing net.

Example: Your opponent whips out a devastating argument proving that

Android phones are better than iPhones. You fire back with: “I can’t believe
we’re having an argument about this. Talk about first world problems!”

Note: This is a very useful strategy, one of the most useful strategies in the
book. I talk about this strategy further in my online course “Verbal
Domination”, the course on how to win and dominate verbal confrontations. By
using this strategy, you move the argument away from a specific topic where
your opponent may have an advantage, to a wider arena where he/she does not
have an advantage or have credible arguments against.
 20. Draw Conclusions Yourself

This strategy isn’t about a specific turn of phrase you can use, but more of an
overall strategy of how you can get your opponent to concede to your
conclusion.

Once your opponent has admitted certain premises, draw the conclusion
yourself. This is a strategic maneuver. Don’t ask your opponent to draw the
conclusion him/herself, as you may risk the opponent refusing to do so. You
can do this even if not all the required premises have been admitted. By
drawing the conclusion quickly, you make the opponent partake in an uphill
battle to defeat you.

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)
 21. Meet Him/Her With a Counterargument as Bad as His/Her’s

Defeat superficial or petty arguments made by your opponent by using a

counterargument that is similarly superficial or petty. You won’t be talking
about the truth of the matter here. By doing this, you make your opponent look
stupid. This is a “shortcut” to winning even though you are not getting to the
truth.

Example: I was sitting next to an older lady at a sports bar during the NCAA
basketball tournament. She was reading a book. I was just having a normal
conversation with my buddy during the game and out of the blue she says:
“Your voice really carries!” I shot back at her: “Yes it does. Let me point out
that your chances of having some peace and quiet at a sports bar during the
NCAA tournament are about as good as my chances of finding love at a gay
bar!”
 22. Petitio Principii

“Petitio Principii” means “begging the question” or circular reasoning.

If your opponent wants you to admit a proposition from which he/she will
immediately win the argument, you must refuse to admit the proposition and
argue that your opponent’s argument is “circular”. By doing that, you
undermine his/her argument and make him/her come off poorly.
 23. Make Him/Her Exaggerate Their Statement

This one is more of a tactic than a strategy, and it is used only

opportunistically. Keep in mind you may not always have the opportunity to
use this tactic.

Constantly contradicting your opponent’s arguments (i.e. pushing his/her

buttons) may irritate him/her enough to cause him/her to exaggerate his/her
own arguments. When you refute his/her exaggerated statements, you appear as
if you have refuted the original argument.

Be careful about your opponent making you exaggerate your own statement, or
your opponent exaggerating your statement himself/herself. If this happens, you
respond by saying “I only said X. No more than that.”
 24. State a False Syllogism

When your opponent makes an argument, you twist his/her argument by

distorting it or inferring false conclusions. By doing that, you indirectly defeat
his/her argument.
 25. Find One Instance to the Contrary

Even if your opponent has made a devastating argument, just find one exception
where your opponent’s argument/conclusion does not apply. By doing that, it
undermines his argument/conclusion.

Example: “You say all women are bad. Come on, Mother Teresa wasn’t.”
 26. Turn the Tables

You literally turn your opponent’s argument against him/her. The argument can
be ad rem or ad hominem.

Example: “This is pot calling the kettle black! You accuse me of doing bad
things, so why don’t we have a look at all the bad things you have done!”

Note: This strategy works best when you know you are dealing with someone
who is not very confident in their position or somebody who does not expect
this strategy to be used against them. By using a surprise attack, you may
completely throw them off guard.
 27. Anger Indicates a Weak Point

This strategy is opportunistic. You may not always have an opportunity to use
it, but when one presents itself, you should take the opportunity.

Look for points in your debate where your opponent gets angry. Those are the
points where your opponent may realize his/her argument is weak, and it is at
those points you should probe and press.

Note: This strategy is very useful, but only when you are having a real-time
debate or argument with someone. If you are using a medium that’s
asynchronous (like in a website comment area, for example) or where you
cannot see your opponent’s reaction, it may not be useful since you cannot
ascertain or detect your opponent’s anger.
 28. Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent

This trick can only be used when you have an audience of laypersons. You do
this by using an invalid argument, which your opponent knows is invalid, but
your audience does not. The best kind of invalid argument would be one that
causes laughter and makes your opponent look silly.

Example: “YOU might think gun control is a bad idea, but why don’t we ask
the others here?”

Note: This strategy may be effective because of pressure on your opponent to

conform and/or fear of rejection. It’s particularly effective if you know that a
large part of the audience is on your side.
 29. Diversion

If you see yourself on the losing end of an argument, just start talking about
something else. However, that “something else” must be somewhat related to
the issue at hand, or else you risk coming off badly. This tactic should only be
used as a last resort.

If this tactic is used against you, refuse to be distracted and bring your
opponent’s attention right back to the matter at hand.
 30. Appeal to Authority Rather than Reason

Point to an authority that the opponent respects instead of arguing directly

about what it is you are arguing about. You can twist your authorities (such as
using authorities that aren’t completely on point) or even falsify your
authorities (because your opponent may have no way to refute you at hand).
Even “universal opinion”, whatever that means, can be an “authority”.

Example: “Oh, I can’t park here in the spot in front of your house? Why don’t
we check the City Code?”

Note: Falsifying your authorities, as Schopenhauer suggested, may not be a

good idea. I don’t recommend doing this generally speaking.

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)
 31. This is Beyond Me

If it appears you have been defeated by your opponent, you can somewhat
“save face” by declaring yourself to be unfit to judge your opponent’s
argument. This is called “playing dumb”. Obviously, this is a last ditch effort
to battle to a draw. You cannot win the argument using this tactic.

Example: “You may be right, but look, nobody really knows.”

 32. Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category

This is putting a “negative” label on the opponent’s argument, which implies

that the argument is not universally accepted or disproven. The more “ugly” or
out of favor the label is the better, since its hard to shed labels.

Example: “That’s a completely misogynistic argument.”

 33. It Applies in Theory, But Not in Practice

This is similar to the “indirect refutation” path as discussed in the “Framework

of Arguments” chapter. It is also a subset of Strategy #17, i.e. defense through
subtle distinctions.

You admit the conclusion, but find a distinction by literally saying “That
applies in theory, but not in practice.”

Here’s another way to say the same thing: “That’s clever, but in the real world,
that doesn’t work.”
 34. Don’t Let Him/Her Off the Hook

If you notice that your opponent is evading a certain line of argument, you
know you have touched on his/her weak point. Don’t let your opponent evade
the point. At that point you need to press your point even harder.

Example: “You didn’t answer the question, so let me ask you again.”
 35. Attack His/Her Motives

Instead of attacking your opponent’s argument, attack his/her motives. Even

better, point out that his/her argument is contrary to the common interest.
 36. Bewilder Your Opponent with Bombast

Overwhelm your opponent by using bombast, i.e. high-sounding language with

little meaning. This works best on people who are insecure about their
knowledge, and should only be used if you are capable of bombastic
statements.

Note: This strategy is not for everyone and its not really a necessary strategy
to use, but if you are capable of pulling this off, make sure you do it as
confidently as possible since that is the key to pulling this strategy off.
 37. A Faulty Proof Refutes His/Her Whole Position

If your opponent is in the right, but chooses the wrong arguments, you attack
him/her as having failed to prove his/her conclusion altogether. I call this the
“weak link” strategy.

Example: “That all makes sense except for your first point. Your argument is
only strong as your weakest point.”

Note: This strategy relies a bit on your opponent’s incompetence, so this is not
a “bread and butter” type of strategy. Keep this in mind as you make your own
arguments. Sometimes it’s best not to say too much since this strategy can be
used against you.
 38. Become Personal, Insulting, Rude

Once you sense your opponent has the upper hand, get personal, insulting, or
rude. Leave the subject you were discussing and attack the person (“ad
hominem”) instead or cause some distraction. By doing so, you make your
opponent unable to reach his/her conclusion if he/she doesn’t realize what
you’re doing and gets defensive.

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)
 CHAPTER THREE
Conclusion and Special Bonus

How to Defend Yourself From Dialectic

Now that you know a bit more about dialectic and know how to use it to your
advantage, what if other people use these strategies against you? Other people
may not know all 38 of Schopenhauer’s strategies, but some people naturally
know to play these tricks.

There are two ways to defend yourself from these strategies:

The first is to merely ignore the strategy and refuse to buy into their trap.

The other method, which I prefer, is to “call out” the strategy being used.
Here’s an example against someone using Strategy #35 (attack his/her motives)
against you: “Ah, I see what you’re doing. Is this the part where I’m supposed
to feel bad?”
 CONCLUSION

Here we are at the end of The New Art of Being Right! I hope you learned a
lot of new “tricks” you can use in your day to day interactions with other
people, especially those contentious moments where you need to persuade
others or defend yourself from slippery opponents.

I can’t wait to hear about the surprise on other people’s faces when you hit
them back with the things you learned in this book. I would say best of luck to
you, but with the knowledge in this book, you won’t need luck. You just need
dialectic. Best wishes!

Cheers,
Min

SPECIAL BONUS ANNOUNCEMENT

As a gift to you for reading this book, I created a SPECIAL BONUS for
you.

Go to www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus and I will send you a PDF called

“7 MORE WAYS TO BE RIGHT: THE ART OF WINNING ONLINE”,
which covers seven ways to be right that are specially adapted to the
modern era and online world.
 NEXT STEPS

1. DOWNLOAD your special bonus at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus

2. Leave a positive REVIEW of this book so that other people can benefit
from it too at http://amzn.to/1WIfGUo

3. SUBSCRIBE to my Youtube channel, The Art of Verbal War, where people

learn to EXCEL in verbal skills at www.youtube.com/artofverbalwar

4. CONTACT me at info@artofverbalwar.com

5. SHARE this book with others.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

 CHAPTER FOUR
About the Author

Min Liu is the author of the book you are reading, the books “Vocal Superstar:
How to Develop a High Status Voice”, “People Games: The Ten Most
Common Power Plays and Mind Games People Play”, “Verbal Self Defense
101”, and the online courses Verbal Self-Defense for the Socially Intelligent
and Verbal Domination.

He’s also the author of The King’s Mindset: Twenty Mindsets to Transform
Ordinary Men into Kings, a success and masculinity “playbook” for modern
men based on the strategies and wisdom of historical kings and world leaders.

Based in San Francisco, CA, his mission is to help people not only improve,
but become EXCEPTIONAL at social and verbal skills. Everything he knows
about these things, he knows from his many different lives as an instructor at
UC Berkeley, a nightclub promoter, an international corporate and securities
lawyer, and now, an author.

He’s passionate about sharing what he has learned from his transformation
from a shy, socially awkward kid into someone who has the ability to use
verbal and social skills to get and achieve what he wants in life. He believes
everybody has the innate ability to make such a transformation by exercising
“muscles” that have not been used very much, and by sharpening the skills they
already have.
He gets especially aroused these days by basketball, kickboxing, meditation,
songwriting, reading books on psychology and inspirational people, people
who are value givers, and most of all, constantly breaking out of his comfort
zone and helping others break out of theirs. On the other hand, he absolutely
cannot stand mediocrity, unoriginal and lazy thinking, and he really can’t stand
wearing sweaters.

Media, speaking, one-to-one coaching requests, or other inquiries can be sent

to info@artofverbalwar.com.
 **********************
ALSO BY MIN LIU

THE KING’S MINDSET: TWENTY MINDSETS TO TRANSFORM

ORDINARY MEN INTO KINGS
The “roadmap” to extraordinary success in life (Kindle eBook)

VOCAL SUPERSTAR: HOW TO DEVELOP A HIGH STATUS

VOICE
Learn the ten steps to develop a high status voice that will increase your
influence and authority (Kindle eBook)

PEOPLE GAMES: THE TEN MOST COMMON POWER PLAYS

AND MIND GAMES THAT PEOPLE PLAY
Learn how to defend yourself from mind games and power plays (Kindle
eBook)

VERBAL SELF DEFENSE 101

An introduction to verbal self defense (Kindle eBook)

VERBAL SELF DEFENSE FOR THE SOCIALLY INTELLIGENT

An online course about defending yourself from verbal bullying, attacks,
and insults with wit and social intelligence

VERBAL DOMINATION
An online course about dominating and winning verbal confrontations

(DOWNLOAD your special bonus “7 More Ways to be Right: The Art of

Winning Online” at www.artofverbalwar.com/aobrbonus)

**********************