They merely involve you PLAYING dumb.

And yes they involve you creating illogical and fallacious arguments, but for the purpose of “winning” an informal argument they are actually quite devious.

These tactics can actually be devastating against inexperienced arguers and even disrupt intelligent ones. Now they are obviously ‘dirty tricks’ tactics designed to make it seem like you are winning an argument, they are not tactics for forming logically sound proper debates, but the page clearly indicates they are such. These tactics can completely fool less intelligent opponents who are weak on critical thinking. They also can be effective at frustrating and derailing more intelligent opponents. Most of all they keep the argument going and they keep the other person having to respond to cheap and illogical arguments which can suck them into responding with a cheap and illogical rebuttal. Once they do that you can switch back into logical mode and attack that one illogical thing they said for all it’s worth.

In principle I hate the idea of arguing to make your opponent lose and not just arguing to authenticate a true point, however in reality you get in to arguments sometimes and your pride gets to you and the last thing on earth you want to do is concede you are wrong so you will do whatever it takes.

Warning: These techniques will most likely not fly against a person with excellent natural critical thinking, and these will just downright make you look ridiculous in any type of formal debate setting.

1) they start name calling i.e. moron

2) They repeat themselves over and over again regardless of what you say

3) They address only a small part of your argument

4) bring up more questions completely randomly

5) they try and make you look like an idiot

6) avoiding questions

7) try to prove their point by pointing out they have more credibility either through intelligence or experience

8) start using inuendos in their words to suggest their opponent is less than they are or not worth consideration

I know I only list 8 signs but some of these match to multiple items from the article. Anyone one could eassily write an article “Signs To Look For That You are Winning an Argument” and just use his tactics to win as your example that someone is loosing.

I myslef am 16 and the leading proponent for my political party (which one is irrelevant) at my school. If you use these in INFORMAL conversation and banter with other teens, kids, and adults, most will be fooled and/or defeated by the sheer complexity or surface-level correctness of the argument.

Ultimately, though, the only way to guarantee 100% victory in an argument is for you to be skillful and correct, and for your opponent to lack a vital skill that you choose to draw out in the course of the argument.

Sometimes you can “win” an argument with fallacious reasoning and cheap tactics, but you won’t be proving the truth of your proposition. It’s better to win an argument by being right.

L’art de toujours avoir raison
(The art of always being right)
Arthur Schopenhauer

what about mecanic’s