An Imagined Conversation
A: ... one way you can gain the upper hand in a conversation is to use praise.
B: Praise?
A: Yes. When the argument is not going your way, praise your opponent, and the usual reponses to praise -- pride, false modesty, blushing -- will take hold and screw up his response.
B: That's very clever! What if, however, he brushes it off and battles on regardless?
A: Then you have met your match. These general principles I have outlined for winning an argument do not work when your opponent knows them and uses them too. In such a case it would boil down to particulars, which can swing either way.
B: Particulars?
A: That is, the dynamics of an individual argument, rather than general theory about arguments at large. We come to argue about the particular case, hence your wits are more important than your knowledge of the rhetoric of argumentation.
B: If the general theory of argumentation and debate is inductive, then there should exist no case where a particular argument rests upon something that can not be accounted for in the general theory -- no specific argument that cannot be generalised into a model for subsequent debates, based upon the known laws of contention. Therefore, what you are really saying is that there are techniques and tricks used by your opponents that you have not managed to generalise and take into account when creating your theory and strategy, thus your claim that where general theories fail, individual wit takes over. This is actually an admission that your methods are lacking!
A: You've caught me out there, I'm afriad. Really, a wonderful piece of reasoning! Most people do not see the false dichotomy of general and particular means of argument.
B: Why, thanks, I mean, gee, I'm just a beginner, I just happend to notice that and don't have the same exp... wait, hey....
B: Praise?
A: Yes. When the argument is not going your way, praise your opponent, and the usual reponses to praise -- pride, false modesty, blushing -- will take hold and screw up his response.
B: That's very clever! What if, however, he brushes it off and battles on regardless?
A: Then you have met your match. These general principles I have outlined for winning an argument do not work when your opponent knows them and uses them too. In such a case it would boil down to particulars, which can swing either way.
B: Particulars?
A: That is, the dynamics of an individual argument, rather than general theory about arguments at large. We come to argue about the particular case, hence your wits are more important than your knowledge of the rhetoric of argumentation.
B: If the general theory of argumentation and debate is inductive, then there should exist no case where a particular argument rests upon something that can not be accounted for in the general theory -- no specific argument that cannot be generalised into a model for subsequent debates, based upon the known laws of contention. Therefore, what you are really saying is that there are techniques and tricks used by your opponents that you have not managed to generalise and take into account when creating your theory and strategy, thus your claim that where general theories fail, individual wit takes over. This is actually an admission that your methods are lacking!
A: You've caught me out there, I'm afriad. Really, a wonderful piece of reasoning! Most people do not see the false dichotomy of general and particular means of argument.
B: Why, thanks, I mean, gee, I'm just a beginner, I just happend to notice that and don't have the same exp... wait, hey....