Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

3 Whisky Happy Hour
The Ricochet Podcast
GLoP Culture
Beyond the Polls with Henry Olsen
Giving Ventures
Mom Wars
3 Martini Lunch
Chicks on The Right
Parsing Immigration Policy
Federalist Radio Hour
What the Hell Is Going On
Freedom to Learn
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Heritage Explains
Not Dead Yet
Who Funds that?
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
The Glenn Show
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Hillsdale Dialogues
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
The Libertarian
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
The American Idea
Madison’s Notes
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Back of the Book
Gray Matters
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert Doar
Homeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
We all know how to lose an argument. The first mistake is to allow the enemy to define the battlefield. "Why do you beat your wife?"
The second mistake is to think that compromise is a universally good outcome: "Let's kill all the Jews" just becomes "Let's kill half the Jews."
The way to win an argument is by asking the penetrating question. In this way, you can define the terms, shape the battlefield, and expose the silliness of the opposition's position. The great master at this was Milton Friedman, who discussed the Ford Pinto against a student who, it must be said, was clearly much brighter and better-spoken than just about any young liberal today. The defense is here. Friedman did it by asking questions. And he proved the principle, beautifully,
The Socratic method works. We should be using it more and more, especially with hostile audiences and interviewers.
I was reminded of this when I read this beautifully written piece about a single Israeli invited to a dinner party where he would be attacked by everyone there. His writing is loquacious and entertaining. The debate was certainly engaging. But this Israeli was always fighting a rear-guard action. He scored points, but he failed. Utterly. And he did it by descending into the mud pit with the pig and ultimately resorting to insulting his audience for being ignorant. They certainly were, but he won nothing by pointing it out.
He should have started by asking questions. I would have kicked off with: "Is raping and murdering women and babies who belong to a group that you do not like ever justified?" Or, "What should be done with the 600,000 Jewish refugees who were forcibly expelled from Arab lands in 1948?" Or, "Why are you not giving your apartment back to the Native Americans from whom your ancestors stole it?"
Then you set the trap. Keep asking questions. Expose the ignorance and idiocy. Win the argument.
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (14)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I learned this tactic reading Aristotle's De Anima.
He states He wanted to be a midwife to people's thoughts.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Is there a way to still win if the other person ask you that penetrating question?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I don't understand this concept of winning an argument. Is it anything like a rubber duck?
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The choice of battlefield makes up an awfully-large part of victory.
It is why "Pro-Choice" is used for abortion advocacy instead of "Pro-Death."
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
What if 'they' get in first? Can you still win? Or is it all about getting in first and defining the conflict?
If they get in first do you need to ignore their question and talk over them or is there a way of engaging with their [penetrating question] that still leads to victory?
You're seeing five of 14 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.