Has there ever been an attempt to document what debate tactics actually work, instead of which are logically correct? For example, ad hominems are technically a fallacy, but with the right audience they can be effective. For a more recent example, the current trend of exploiting victim status for sympathy has been very effective as well. It just seems like a useful field of knowledge that hasn't been explored much, which /pol/ could benefit from.
Tl;dr debating for victory rather than truth.
>>69750462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
/thead
>>69750462
It depends on your audience and the people you are debating against. There isn't any one tactic that is superior in all cases.
>>69750544
>>69750462
tl;dr
soph·ism
ˈsäfˌizəm/
noun
a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.
>>69750544
Basically this
of course nobody gives a shit about facts. that's why /pol/ just wants a meme president instead of having a comfy corporate shill that would start wars but keep oil cheap. vote for hillary you cunts, I want more military bases in the baltic states, more wars in the middle east and cheaper oil. I will give hot 5'10 baltic babes in return to you virgins.
>>69750462
Rhetoric is distinct from logic for this very reason.
>>69750544
I'll look into it.
>>69750596
Right, but just like any field these differences could be documented and the best strategy for each case could be determined.
>>69750462
why should we have to when the truth supports us
>>69750892
Because the truth itself isn't the best way to convince people of the truth.
Always bet on Straw Man.
Do you even read Plato, bruh?
>>69751273
Start with Apology, then Gorgias, then Symposium, then Republic.
>>69751345
not OP but thanks mate. added to the book list
>>69750462
What in gods name.is that thing pretending to be a.stove? Is the pic from some 3rd world shithole?
