Reading and watching the news lately has inspired a few strategic tidbits I would like to share.
Force them off the negative: It is always easier to argue from the negative side--criticizing other people's actions, dissecting their motives, etc. And that is why most people will opt for this. If they had to describe a positive vision of what they want in the world, or how they would accomplish a particular task, this would open them up to all kinds of attacks and criticisms. It takes effort and thought to establish a positive position. It takes less effort to work on what other people have done, and poke endless holes. It also makes you look tough and insightful, because people delight in hearing someone tear an idea apart.
Facing these negative-mongers in a debate or argument is infuriating. They can come at you from all angles. Hit you with sarcasm and snide comments, weave all kinds of abstractions that can make you look bad. If you lower yourself to their position, you end up like a boxer throwing punches into thin air. These opponents give you nothing to hit. (In war, it is always easier to hold ground than take ground.) Your task is to force them off this position by getting them to commit to some positive position. Now, you have a target. If they resist or refuse to do this, you can attack them for this resistance.
http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/archives/only_the_dull_a.phtmlNOTE: Those of you familiar with Robert Greene's book
The 48 Laws Of Power know that it's written from an amoral tone, and his writings do not concern themselves with what should be, but what has worked to get people what they want. There is also a part that makes it sound like he is agreeing with Bush's position on why we should not withdraw from Iraq when he is just elaborating on it; you should know that that's what he's doing, but I suspect that we'll still see some people jump on that like I could even post unsubtle right-wing propaganda on a left-wing message board and brainwash people. Just wanted to establish that up front.