"We need to define just exactly what you mean by _________."
"Your last sentence ended with a preposition. Please restate it properly."
OUT OF CONTEXT: A twisted version of NIT-PICKING, the technique here is to purposely misunderstand some word, phrase, or analogy and shift the focus to it instead of the subject. This ploy will derail the other person into a defense of the word, phrase, or analogy instead of the case at hand.
"You said 'feel' instead of 'think'. If you are feeling instead of thinking, I won't be able to convince you with reason."
"You said this happened five years before Hitler came to power. Why are you so fascinated with Hitler? Are you anti-Semitic?"
I'M NOT SAYING THIS: This is a marvelous way to come off as nice while saying things that would otherwise be considered rude.
"Have I ever brought up the $523.52 you owe me? Never! Have I ever embarrassed you or made you feel bad over it? Have I ever told you how much I need that money? No, I never have."
"I don't care if other people say you're opinionated (or boring or overbearing, or etc.)"
"I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but (blah, blah, blah...)."
"My dear congregation, I hate to speak of money matters, but (money, money, money, etc.)."
HEAT-SEEKING QUESTION: The intent here is to throw the other person's competence in doubt while at the same time changing the subject. A question is asked that the other person is not likely to know the answer to, destroying their credibility and confidence. To really rub it in, the questioner can give a full answer to his/her own question proving that him/herself to have superior knowledge of the subject.
"You mentioned the constitution. Can you quote the preamble for us?"
"Do you realize which of the dialectic principles you've just violated?" [ "No."] "I'd be glad to explain them to you, but (branch to OVER YOUR HEAD)."
RIGHT BY ASSOCIATION: "I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated, and those who quickly recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is...."
"Of course there is a lot of debate on this subject, but the best scholars believe..."
CHEAP SHOT:This technique requires prior knowledge of some embarrassing mistake or painful event in the other person's life. This knowledge can be woven into a comment in a way that agitates the other person without direct reference. A key word or phrase is tossed out like a grenade that embarrasses or humiliates the other person.
"What was it your ex-wife used to say?""Didn't we already have this argument just before you went through the de-tox program?"
THE SALESMAN'S CLOSE: This technique asks an obvious question and, by playing on a sense of guilt, demands a predetermined response driven by common sense or decency. The yes or no response is then implied to mean a complete agreement with the asker's point of view.
Family get-together: "Doesn't your family mean anything to you?" ["Well, yes!"] "Then I will see you at 10 am."
Support a political movement: "Do you want communism in America? Is that what you want?"
Join a Health Spa: "Don't you care about your own body?"
BOMBAST: A rhetorical ploy to give more emotional force to a point or objection than is appropriate. This requires showmanship and involves risk, but when it works it can be quite effective. It is useful to use exaggerated facial expressions and/or pound on any nearby objects to effectively communicate the overreaction.
"How DARE you question such an obvious point?" "Honestly! You can't REALLY expect me to believe that?"
THINK VS. FEEL:A person will likely be off center of the ANALYTICAL/EMOTIVE SPECTRUM (an alternate name for this technique) in any heated exchange. By pointing out which side the other person is on, (either side will do) he/she is obliged to defend his/her temperament instead of the case at hand.
"Your cold, analytical approach to this issue doesn't take into account the human element."
"Your emotional involvement with this issue obscures your ability to see things objectively."
LUNATIC FRINGE:If a person is making an imaginative or novel point, the approach here is to push the idea to a radical extreme generally agreed to be bad. The extreme can be either real or imagined. The hope here is that the other person will reflexively back off and retreat to a defensive position, thus short-circuiting the progression of the argument.
"So you think we ought to just throw out the whole system, then?"
"How is that different from classic fascism?" "So you would just like to kill off anyone who disagrees with you, it appears!"
CUT 'EM OFF AT THE PASS: If you can see where the other person's logic is leading, you can make it very difficult along the way by arguing each minute sub-point and example. If the other person can not get past the first point, how will a case ever be made? Most of the techniques listed can be used to achieve this end.
"I don't think we can go on until we establish the scientific validity of that last statement."
"I don't see any point in discussing this until all the data are in."
DENIAL OF A VALID CONCLUSION: This is the opposite of the CUT 'EM OFF AT THE PASS technique. Instead of arguing along the way, agree with all of the sub-points but deny the obvious conclusion. This is very frustrating to the other person because it automatically changes the subject to epistemology (how we know what we know). Generally, the other person will attempt another explanation rather than get into a heavy epistemological discussion, and the technique can simply be repeated.
"I don't see how you figure that." "I agree with everything you said except the conclusion. It doesn't make any sense to me, and I can not accept it. I am trying, but your brain must work much differently than mine."
