Years ago, I discovered a debate tactic that I utterly fell in love with. I’ve heard it most often called “verbal judo,” but from my admittedly skimpy knowledge of martial arts, “verbal aikido” might be a better analogy. It involves taking your opponent’s own words and actions and turning them back against them, much like a judo or aikido artist uses their opponent’s strength and attacks against them.
It can be wonderfully fun, and I’ve indulged it quite a bit in the last few days. I took the liberals’ own terms of highest praise, and found a way to apply them to President Bush. I perverted some of the arguments in favor of rights for illegal aliens into an endorsement of the 2nd Amendment. And this morning I took their despicable race-baiting against a black Republican and turned it into a threat to some of their staunchest supporters.
It’s probably not a good idea to spell out one of my favorite tactics, but after a couple of people who usually agree with me questioned my sanity, I thought it might be safer to let the curtain slip a little.
It’s a great tactic, and even better when you use their exact words. The Chinese students in Tienanmen Square (sp?), before the massacre, quoted Chairman Mao constantly.
I used to try to reason with them. Then I tried use various analogies. Then I tried reason again.
Now I just call them a dumbass and move on.
I don’t make many friends but it does wonders for the blood pressure. (smirk)
P
This is a tactic I do all the time. It’s fun to watch people wriggle and squirm as they try to justify why their positions are correct, even though I only changed a single word or two.
The danger in such a tactic is to avoide appearing to just degenerating into a:
“I know you are but what am I?” or a “I’m rubber you’re glue…” style of argument.
This is an example of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, stating (paraphrased) if a rule applies one way, it also applies the other way. It’s nothing new, but it is effective at exposing the flaws in ones argument.