Debate tactics - turn the argument around

K

KAM_Indianapolis

New member
I've seen us spend countless words debating the issues between each other and with the anti-gun crowd. Just yesterday I posted the article on the failure of gun control in the UK on our local papers forum (http://interact.starnews.com/forums/Forum3/HTML/000600.html). One person tried making the argument that confiscation doesn't automatically follow registration and licensing.

I asked the person to please convince me how registration and licensing would reduce handgun violence in America. So far, not one argument, in fact no one has commented on this proposal. Usually this board is filled with liberal smart mouths who always have something to say. While I wont take their silence as a victory, I do hope that the person making the argument is at least thinking about his position, instead of parroting who ever he is following.

I'd like to hear other peoples comments on this tactic. Has anyone else ever used this method? Turn the argument around and put the other person on the defensive.

Have them defend their position and try to convince you that it is right. Above all, make sure you frame your question correctly. How would X reduce gun violence and accidents.

Peace...
Keith
 
Fair enough and a good tactic. I point out that if laws alone were sufficient, we wouldn't have any problems, but just as licensing & registering of cars & drivers hasn't stopped DUI, reckless driving, kept the unlicensed from driving, etc., the only thing that does is education and enforceement. Laws are only meanngful to the law abiding, criminals don't give a hoot about laws (whichis why we call them criminals"), the only way to deal with them is to catch them (enforcement) and make them see the error of their ways (education). Why is this so hard to grasp?
M2
 
This has always been a good tactic. Most antis just regurgitate things that they have read on an anti gun site or literature. They have ZERO knowledge of the topic beyond that because generally they are not capable of independent logical thought. You will find that they spout off some common propaganda, 43 times more likely is one, and you come back with the information on the Kellerman study in Seattle funded by HCI where he used the wrong statistical model and had to include 'high risk' individuals to get the numbers to do what he wanted. They go off on another argument. I stop them and force them to address my rebuttal before moving on to another to a different line of attack. If they can't I force them to concede defeat on that part before we continue. This is when they will usually disappear from the debate or get emotional and start screaming. If they do the later, it is when I start laughing at them, really throws them off. Yes, do force them to defend the position that they take, to defend their arguments, and do not continue the debate until they do. This is why HCI and the MMM people tell their members to not engage in a debate, they know they can't win.
 
Ok sneaky idea of the week.....

Stage a online debate. On a public board. With a "pro-gun" and a "Anti-gun" but the Anti is actually a Pro.

Anti's won't publicly debate, because thier arguments are fallacies. Their reasons do not stand up to a good open debate. So we bring the debate out into the open. Using "ringers" yeah it's dishonest and wrong, but I'm not a nice guy.



------------------
"Take your weapon with reluctance. Draw it with dread. Grieve for those who fall to your bullets. But make every shot count."-Robert Shea
 
"We have to do SOMETHING" is the usual response.

Logic and results is not a strong point.

People respond to solutions that have surface validity.

Thus, folks who are emotional block your arguments. You won't convice any anti but you might reach those in the middle.

You might also add that this is expensive and would you support a sales tax increase on all goods for the program?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top