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.

 

Background

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
 
Cheers,
DiffTheEnder

Comments

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