Practical use of debating techniques

Use an analogy to illustrate the appeal to authority (it's more of an appeal to authority than ad hom).

Something like bringing up (this isn't too good but you get the point) that a doctor is able to treat a patient that has a disease that the doctor does not himself (or herself femmies!) suffer from.

In some of those situations i like to point out that i can neither design nor manufacture an automobile, but i still know a lemon if i buy one . . .

The best response is agreement.

Agreement is out of the question. I will never willfully back down in an argument with some people.

Craven: appeal to authority. I knew that. Sort of.

I'm sorry, that is the EASIEST way. I was just a little confused. My favorite line in debate is "My new opinion is exactly the same as yours." It really throws people for a spin. Of course... it doesn't help you WIN the debate either...

One needn't necessarily "win" debates--standing your ground is perfectly acceptable and honorable, at least as long as you are certain that the ground upon which you stand is one of principle . . .

I know, winning isn't everything, but in this specific case, I'd love to be able to just shut someone down. There is a certain person I have in mind, who is just an incredibly annoying know-it-all, and I'd love to make them look like the jackass they are. We disagree on practically everything, and it's usually a pretty close battle, but I'd love to have that little edge.

Principle has no place in debate. Try using sarcasm, it's more offensive. If they don't agree with your arguments, or get angry at your sarcasm, you can always kick them in the face. That can REALLY hurt.

I like Setanta's first comment. It subtly implies that their opinion is the intellectual equivalent of "a lemon."

Now that's what I'm talking about! LOL

I would disagree--Kick specified an example in which someone says that having no children, he is unqualified to comment. Extend my analogy to child-rearing, and i am saying the child is the equivalent of the "lemon."

Oooh, that might be even better.

Well, if we go by the example presented, I might go with something like I may not have kids, and may indeed not know, but I do know a couple of things...first off, your kids are brats, and second, as you are the parent, it's clearly no fault of theirs.

But I don't think most people would take it that way. They would feel they were supposed to be offended at something, but they wouldn't think it out much more than that.

Kicky, I'm annoyed by that attitude too, and I'll tell you if I think of any real advice. Still, I do like Setanta's choice.

Craven's example APPLIES really well, but I don't think an opinionated person would give it a second thought. I mean, if it's not a formal debate, they don't have to ackowledge your points.

I've got it! "The person who farts, isn't always the first one to smell it."

If that doesn't suit you, then try, "You know, you've got bad breath."
Then wait for them to breath into their hand and sniff, "I don't smell it."
"Exactly."

Kicky, I HATE the whole concept of "you have to experience it to understand it", and think it is untrue for almost every subject, but parenting really seems to be an exception. (Not always, I know people without kids who really do get it.) But I don't think you can hope to shut anyone (s-i-l?) down on that one with "fallacious appeal to authority" or anything else.

I'll help you make a fool of her though if you give me details. :-)

Saying "you don't have kids so you don't know what you're talking about" is a sort of argumentum ad hominem, in that the speaker is attacking Kickycan (or, more particularly, his non-parenthood) rather than his argument. It is also an implicit argumentum ad verecundiam (an appeal to authority), as the speaker is suggesting that a parent (such as the speaker) is worthy of more credence solely on the basis of his or her parenthood.

Of course, explaining all of this is in detail may not be the kind of cutting riposte that Kickycan is looking for: after all, laying out the elements of an argumentum ad verecundiam was not the sort of thing that one was likely to hear bantered across the Algonquin roundtable.

Setanta's retort is, I think, the right approach (I always prefer "you don't have to be a chicken to judge an egg"), but it lacks that certain sarcastic "bite." SCoates's recommended fallback response is, sadly, itself a logical fallacy (it's an argumentum ad baculum), but it does have the advantage of directness.

No, what we need is a reply that is so devastatingly mordant and incisive that it leaves the speaker rhetorically eviscerated, something that would be worthy of Dr. Johnson or Oscar Wilde. Of course, we need to acknowledge that such a reply will, regrettably, be just as logically barren as the speaker's initial remark, but I think that, in such circumstances, the sacrifice is worth making. Cav, I think, was close to the mark with his "as you are the parent, it's clearly no fault of theirs." In that spirit, let me offer the following modest suggestions:

Speaker: "You don't have kids so you don't know what you're talking about."

Response A: If the price of knowledge is having kids like yours, I will gladly choose ignorance.

Response B: Your ability to breed is hardly a function of your intelligence.

Response C: Having children makes you no more an authority than pissing in the air makes you a fountain.

Response D: There's one way to address that deficiency, madam. Now get on that pool table and let's get busy!

Ah, Joe to the rescue.