Destroy your friends - winning every argument

Running a section called "A DIFFerent View" is no easy task. The name means I have to uphold its meaning; by being different and not becoming stale. After several hours of pondering on "DIFFerent" things to bring to you, the reader. I have come upon an interesting set of articles/series that will not only help your League of Legends experience, but also give you an useful set of life skills.


Destroy your friends - Winning Every Argument

As hinted in the title, "Destroy your friends", will arm you with deadly weapons. 
'What sort of weapons?', you may ask.
I would reply, 'I can teach you to win every argument".


What application does this have to LoL? 

A very useful one as it happens. Recall every chat log from your games in solo queue, chats with friends, posts in LoL forums, Reddit, comments in YouTube etc. You would recall countless instances of players claiming X, and backing it up with Y as their argument. I will tell you now that at least a quarter of those arguments had logical fallacies within it that you can exploit to turn the tables and win the argument.



Sound reasoning is the basis of winning arguments. Logical fallacies undermine arguments. My definition of a fallacy is any trick of language or logic that allows a statement to be passed off as something it is not.
Many of the fallacies are committed by people genuinely ignorant of logical reasoning. Others, however, might be committed by persons bent on deception. If there is insufficient force behind the argument and the evidence, fallacies can add enough weight to carry them through.
I will be teaching you to identify logical fallacies and ripping them apart. There are over 70 fallacies I want to expose to you, and as such I'll be doing it in parts over the next couple of weeks.
In the interest of arming you with knowledge quicker, let's get on with it!

Fallacy #1: Abusive Analogy

Statement: "Congratulations to Hotshot on transitioning to the jungler role! Although let me just point out that he has no more experience of jungling than a fresh level 30."
The fallacy: It brings extra irrelevant material to an argument that tries to force your mind to fill in the blanks. This is a subtle fallacy because it relies on the associations which the audience make from the picture presented. Your mind immediately conjures an image of a person with <200 wins and assumes Hotshot must be of a similar skill level even though that is unlikely. A sneaky fallacy this one.
Using it: There are common uses of this fallacy that are so widely spread that it has lost its meaning. Examples include "straightlaced schoolmistresses" or "trashy drug abusers". These are so uncreative that they will add nothing to your argument. Instead attempt to make it as creative as possible. One of my favourite uses of this, was Daniel O'Connell's description of Sir Robert Peel.
"... a smile like the silver plate on a coffin" - At first glance, a compliment. But there are sinister connotations behind it!

Fallacy #2: Accent

Statement: "My team told me to not push bot lane alone. It's all right for me to push top lane alone"
The Fallacy: Finding a loophole through the words based on emphasis. The emphasis on the above example would be "bot lane", whereas the team would have emphasized "alone". This is mainly a verbal thing and not written often.

Fallacy #3: Accident

Statement: "Creep score is not that important. I mean, if I have 40 kills, my CS hardly matters"
The fallacy: This fallacy uses freak circumstances to override generalisations. The generalisation in this case is that creep score is important. By finding a freak case where CS is not that important, the user tries to override the generalisation. Almost anything can be argued using this fallacy. "It's ok to shoot someone. If I have someone threatening my life, I can shoot them, so I can now as well." This fallacy is popular among anarchists.

Fallacy #4: Affirming the Consequent

Statement: "When teams get aced, the enemy gets Baron. In this game, the enemy has Baron buff, that must mean that the other team got aced"
The Fallacy: The user of this fallacy is mixing up the cause-effect cycle. "If I drop an egg, it breaks. This egg is broken, so I must have dropped it". It's not logical to determine the cause of something based purely on the result. It is a fallacy because an event can occur due to different causes and we cannot be certain of only one cause when we see only the event.
Using it: This fallacy is extremely useful to implicate someone in wrongdoing. Here's an example. "If the Graves wanted to troll, he would buy AP. He did take AP masteries" The Graves might have just taken the wrong masteries by accident but using this fallacy, you're trying to imply that Graves has a bad motive. It could be that he does, but we cannot confirm it.

Fallacy #5: Amphiboly

This one isn't something that you see often in LoL but the gist of it is that you remain ambiguous by ignoring specifics or missing words. Examples are common in horoscopes, "You will face a challenge today" - what kind? I face challenges everyday.

I would really like some feedback on this guys. Is this something you want to read or should I just quit this now? I know this is REALLY different. Leave me some feedback on this - so I know whether to continue :)
Hope you enjoyed this,
 - Diff
 Subscribe to me on YouTube

If you guys have any questions, feedback, suggestions, propositions or anything else you'd like to say:
- Feel free to join me in the "A DIFFerent View" chatroom on the NA server in the LoL Client
- Leave a comment on my YouTube Channel
- Leave a comment on my Facebook page
- Leave a comment on this post
- Email me at [email protected]
You can find all my articles/posts from the old Reign of Gaming here


  • #26 Play2pvp

    There is no good reason to win every argument. The person who is wrong should always lose the argument because this makes both people or at least one of them learn. If someone who wins an argument is wrong, they learn nothing.

  • #23 xepel

    This doesn't allow you to win arguments, it just allows you to defend against bad ones.

    In any case, it is irrelevant to most of LoL. There is not enough time in game to discuss logical fallacies, and, as other people have pointed out, most people will just ignore you/rant at you if you actually attempt to do so. Knowing these fallacies does *not* stop other people from committing them, nor does it convince them to stop using them.

    In any case, I should hope that my teammates would be working on playing the game as opposed to typing (as long as they aren't dead). I get fairly annoyed if people suddenly stop to chat, and I would be annoyed even if they are doing so to rip apart someone's logical fallacy.

  • #22 zarozz

    I enjoy this you should keep going. But these points don't necessarily allow you to win arguments, all it does it shows you ways in which people can attempt to persuade your opinion. It doesn't show how you can counter such statements to defeat them, merely how they will defeat you.

  • #20 Buddhakingpen

    you are running out of things to talk about.

  • #19 da_roxxor


    Arthur, King of trolls since 1864.

  • #18 fuzzythinker

    Hehe, I would have to say, arguements break out often enough in games and other places.  The real question is, what is it that you are trying to accomplish by the arguement?

    If you want to win, then go for it.  Win the arguement.

    If that is not what you seek when you argue, then, well, maybe argueing is the last thing you should ever do to accomplish what you seek.

  • #15 paintner

    Only problem with this well written article is that it assume that the people you argue with got half a brain.
    On lower ELO (where this tend to happen more) these arguments will only meet a 'STFU NOOB I FEED NOW' kind of reaction.

    Don't know if people are allergic to the truth and when it hits them they go into Brain Damage-mode much like if a person would suffer a stroke =( 

  • #17 buckx

    Half a brain is exactly who this works on. If you play with the kinds of folks I do (who all happen to have been national level debaters), it hardly allows you do "destroy" them.

  • #14 Aquitanius

    Your title doesn't fit. You point out flaws in arguments, but you won't win every argument after reading this article.  Especially not against my friends, who aren't stupid.

    To me this brings nothing new and is totally off topic.

  • #13 VVinrar

    dis sux I like how you posted this even though half of the RoG staff said they didn't want it.

    Last edited by VVinrar: 7/1/2012 7:41:58 AM
  • #21 darkuser77

    I like how you call out your fellow bloggers in the comments. I remember them because I always go 'wtf this guy sounds like that gossip bitch at work that always reveals things told in private conversations and rats everyone out'

  • #24 Frumjoa

    I think he was giving an example of Fallacy #1

  • #25 gekkos

    this is totally true 

  • #12 anemelaki

    I really enjoyed this post,mainly because i am interested in this kind of stuff.Sure,it is inrelevan to LoL,but it wasn't bad either.

  • #11 dreammorpheus

    They need to start teaching this earlier. The first lesson I got in logic and argumentation came in my second year of college.


    The sad truth is, in real life, no one ever wins arguments. You cant be rational against irrational people. most people think repeating their arguments louder makes them more convincing. Rational argument requires mutual respect, and that's a hard thing to find, especially when two people are in passionate disagreement. If the point of the argument is one persons competence or performance, the argument is especially hopeless.  A lot of people can take criticism if it's tactfully and carefully done. Almost no one can take it after the team gets aced. (Usually, If it's my fault I take credit for it before anyone can point the finger, so I cheat a little bit ;))

  • #10 ziptofaf

    Diff's REAL way of "winning" every argument (can actually upload youtube video for non-believers):

    Dr Prant: Don't farm bot, they will get baron.
    Diff farms bot.

    40 secs later enemy gets baron cuz jungle Lee Sin (also known as DiffTheEnder) farmed bot even though he was told not to beforehand. 35 mins in. Alone.

    His answer: "I was bored".

  • #9 Misticaltom

    I'm liking the post, I feel all that information is relativly simple and obvious, but this isn't aimed at me, or anybody who knows these things.   It's aimed at people who don't, and I enjoy reading such as this regardless.  The Different View articles are what keeps me coming to this sight on a daily basis, instead of say, once every jungle tier list.

    I want to see more like this, perhaps I'll get some new ways to argue further down the line.

  • #8 Dub_Rio

    You approached a decent topic (debate and reasoning skills in LoL) however this article is written at like a high school level. You did a very poor job of bringing up the many common LoL meme's that make no logical sense whatsoever. 

    This reminds me a lot of that other article you wrote about economics. Sure, your intentions are good and the topic you chose is interesting, however it's somewhat clear to me you know very little about both psychology and economics. 

    - This is coming from an Math/Econ/Psych major and Psych PhD student. 

  • #2 Azncrackfox

    This was well written, and interesting, but Reign of Gaming is not where I would look for a post like this. I admire your courage for throwing this out here, but I feel that this site should focus more towards League of Legends. I have enjoyed your posts comparing items and build choices as well as strategies for winning lanes. It is indeed refreshing to have a change of direction, but this seems a bit to far out of the way. 

  • #5 DiffTheEnder

    Thank you for your feedback :)

    I'll take what you have said into account - and weigh them up before making more articles like this. Still need to see what other readers think!

  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Clear All Quotes