The Three Rhetorical Tricks to Win Any Debate
Introduction
Debating - the gentleman’s sport. A battle of wits. A duel of minds. A tug of war where knowledge is strength. But even sharper than the intellect is the skill of rhetoric. Silver-tongued acrobatics cut deeper than truth. You don’t need to concern yourself with truth or even being knowledgeable in the subject you speak of - what you need is to know how to defeat your opponent. You can be as stupid and ignorant or as clever and intelligent as you like, but you will never win a debate if you lack the rhetoric and charm to cut down your opponent. Luckily for you, three simple tricks will give you an advantage in whatever argumentative situation you find yourself in. Are you a rising political star? Internet debater or somebody who likes to sow seeds of discomfort at the family dinner? With these tricks up your sleeve, nobody will stand a chance against your wit and supreme charisma.
No longer will you have to play the devil’s advocate to make the people around you question your morals. No longer will you make the people around you uncomfortable and discontent with pointless arguments that lead nowhere. Everyone will see your intellectual supremacy and you will finish every single debate. Anyone foolish enough to bring up an opinion will quickly be shot down by an arrow of pure electrical brain power shooting straight from your mouth. You won’t have to practice even, and you won’t have to study anything - because that’s just time wasted when you could be starting and winning more debates.
We're not going to utilise whataboutism or other trivial rhetorical tricks; because those your intellectual opponent can counter and find answers to. These three esoteric tricks you’re about to learn however are of an entirely different magnitude. They’re so powerful that most people give up debating completely after having succumbed to an opponent using them. There is some defense against these dark arts, however, they will not be revealed here. Without further ado let’s dive right into it and start with a simple yet powerful move.
The Schmove
Funky and deadly, this groovy move will have your opponent’s brain wriggling like a can of worms. It’s easy to pull off and requires no prior knowledge or experience debating. Utilising the power of repetition the schmove is simply repeating what your opponent has said with a slight change. Add -sch at the start of any big word they use. E.g "Fundamentally we have to change..." you just counter with the words: "fundamentally schmundamentally". It is that easy. Making a mockery of your opponent and their fancy vocabulary will show them and the world that big words don’t mean anything when the schmove has hit them. Special knowledge and accuracy break under the pressure of ridicule, and the fancy will quickly become the schmancy.
The perfect counter to any dimwit who tries to dominate you with big words. You don’t have to understand the lingo they are slinging - you don’t even have to listen to what they say, because as you repeat the word back it only gets more powerful if you mispronounce it. This technique is also perfect against anyone who would try to lower your credibility as a debater by correcting your pronunciation. It is a common technique by the people who have no better counterpoint to provide. If they’re foolish enough to go for this retort just quickly hit them with the schmove and not only will be unable to correct you but everyone around will see how little you care for being correct in pronunciation. What really matters is you showing that you understand the word and you do so by completely disengaging and disarming it.
The schmove can also be enhanced and become more powerful by utilising your body language. There is a lot of power in the way you behave and move as you discuss. There’s a fine balance, you have to be somewhere between Roman statue and Italian activist. Not too little and not too much. Adding gestures like rolling your eyes, or stupid faces may add or subtract from your schmove. It’s risky but can definitely pay off. You either make yourself look stupid or it further proves the stupidity of the other party. The schmove is easy to remember and can be pulled out in any discussion. There is however a more powerful and malign way to use the power of repetition.
The Mocking Repetition
Such a powerful move it has been outlawed in most countries when it comes to political debates. Except for the Wild West of rhetorical argumentation - the US of A's. Repeat a shorter sentence they just said in a mocking and stupid-sounding voice. Especially powerful if combined with them calling you out for it and repeating it despite their callout. What better way for the audience to know what a stupid head your debate opponent is than repeating whatever dumb stuff they just said? For an extra flair make sure your voice is as obnoxious if not more than their already insufferable tone. Generally, people tend to go lower in pitch when speaking as it shows off confidence and people are more inclined to trust deeper voices. So when using the mocking repetition it’s perfect to do the opposite - go as high in pitch as you can.
As mentioned before confident body language will earn you the trust of your listeners, so when imitating your opponent and their nonsensical riffing make sure to play it up, you can flail your hands around, and make stupid faces - anything that will enrage your opponent. Because it doesn’t matter how clever, beautiful or well-versed they are - if you can make them lose their temper you’ve already won. Political debates are kindergarten fights in the sandbox and winning isn’t enough - you need to make them cry. This power move needs to be used with caution, because it’s generally viewed as immoral, especially in a debate setting. In a casual debate amongst friends or family, they can think of you as an asshole but they can’t expel or ban you, so there are no consequences other than loneliness using it there. But in more official settings a moderator might step in and stop you from using the moves further.
The move is simple: You just take what your opponent said word for word and repeat it mockingly in a stupid voice. Add some gestures and make them upset. Holding up the mirror to their face they will see their own mistakes and either give up or become upset. If you make them upset you’ve already won, there’s no coming back in a fat-chewing contest of intelligence if you lose your temper. Emotional intelligence is part of the art of the talk. Without repeating ourselves further we’re going to move on to the next part of mental warfare: confusion.
The Non-Quotation
"No" is your answer to anything they say. Note: The quotation marks are what really matters here, as simply saying no could be viewed as a legitimate response. We do not concern ourselves with legitimacy, especially not when we intend to confuse and throw off our opponent.
“More importantly than winning debates with facts and logic is flexing on your opponent big style and confusion is the best way to harvest their salty tears” - Kunfungus Tsu, The Art of Internet Debates.
This move will often leave your opponent so confused that they will start digging themselves into a hole. They might even try the lowest and worst of rhetorical tactics: the Socratic method. Invented by the local Greek drunk uncle who never was invited for the winter solstice family meal for his annoying need to constantly debate the Socratic method is for liberal arts students and kindergarten teachers - not for real soldiers of the debate. Regardless of what tactic they might start using, they will probably question your stance asking you to deliberate or explain. While they desperately try to get a crumb out of you that they could turn against you you will be busy thinking about the next epic debate you will win. Like a stoic statue you will stand your ground and simply refuse to elaborate. Is your answer a yes or a no? “No”. You might be tempted to mock your opponent by explaining it to them, like a sinister jester whose explanation of the joke not only ruins it but makes the other feel stupid. Don’t fall into that trap of pride, remain focused because if you explain the trick they might use it against you and there’s no coming back from that. If they “yes” your “no” it’s over: it’s become an ouroboros of glossophilia, an eternal circle, a blabbering snake yapping its own tail off. There’s no end to that kind of debate other than one of the two conversing combatants dropping dead from exhaustion.
The non-quotation is simple and can be used against anything and anyone. The less sense it makes the better. Your opponent stated some statistics? “No”. They agreed with you? “No”. There are endless possibilities with this one and the only limit is your imagination. You can take it as far as you want and make it as absurd as you like. In no time will you be crowned the king or queen of debates. Your family and friends will despise talking to you, and will wonder if your constant need for dopamine through your smug argumentation is neurological or if you’re just unhinged. You can argue with anything and anyone and use these tricks on any level. Crush nerds on the internet, upset political opponents or simply make more enemies - being as awesome as you come with some hate. Ignore them. You’re the best around and your rhetoric and skilful ability to win in debates is the proof of how smart and incredible you are. Really anyone to go against you should be considering themselves lucky to be so close to your shoes when they bite the dust.
Summary
“Arguing with a fool only proves there’s two.”
