Although public disputes are essential in democratic societies, not every argument is won by weighing facts and considering reasons. In his book “The Art of Being Right” [1], Arthur Schopenhauer somewhat ironically explains tricks one might use to win an argument. Not surprisingly, a short analysis of those stratagems reveals that they are commonly used today. The goal of this article is to present a couple of easy tricks used by people of influence to win disputations and pull audiences to their side.

It should be noted that the discussed stratagems aren’t necessarily honest in their aim to reach a well-grounded conclusion – Schopenhauer could have just as well described tactics used by despised enemies. The judgment on the matter will be left to the reader.

The homonymy

Homonyms are words which have the same spelling (homographs, e.g. bear – deliver / bear – animal / beə(r)) or pronunciation (homophones, e.g. die – expire / dye – color / daɪ), but carry different meanings. The homonymy stratagem consists in formulating an argument shifting attention away from the issue by using a different meaning of a given word.

An example of this ruse can be seen in a phrase sometimes used to describe evolution as “just a theory” [2]. A consultation with a dictionary [3] reveals that the word theory has three basic meanings. The definition marked as no. 1 explains that a theory is “one or more ideas that explain how or why something happens,” while no. 3 states that it is “an idea that you believe is true although you have no proof”. This appears to be the meaning of the word as applied by the opponents of Darwin’s groundbreaking idea. However, definition no. 2 gives the following meaning: “the set of general principles that a particular subject is based on”. In fact, a scientific theory is more than that. To quote Encyclopedia Britannica, it is “a structure suggested by these (empirical) laws and (…) devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner” [4]. It might also be prudent to consult an author who can phrase it more clearly, “A theory is something evolved (…) to fit the known facts. It is a successful theory if it survives the introduction of hitherto unknown facts. And it becomes an accepted theory if it can make accurate predictions about things or events that have not yet been discovered, or have not yet occurred” [5].

In other words, those who try to discard evolution selectively use a keyword to limit the scope of the dispute to a simplified level. Deliberately or not, consciously or not – one might add.

Categorizing

Categorizing is a stratagem widely used in today’s political discourse. It can be applied to an assertion through “putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character” [1]. It is possible to throw suspicion on an argument by generalizing its premise and stating that it is, for instance, mere idealism. Through using such a label, the philosopher explains, two goals are achieved. Firstly, the opponent’s argument is dismissed, in a way, through saying that it is old and commonly known; secondly, through insinuating that “the system referred to has been entirely refuted” [ibidem].

The popularity of this stratagem derives from the ease with which it can be applied. It does not require tackling individual aspects of the matter at hand and allows the speaker to shift the focus of the argument to a general and potentially vague category.

Today’s political discourse provides numerous examples of how this stratagem is applied. In response to widespread protests against the implementation of a strict anti-abortion law in Poland, Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of a Polish catholic conservative party which has held the majority of seats in the Polish parliament since 2015, stated that everything outside the teachings of the Catholic Church is nihilism [6, 7, 8]. That way, all the arguments against the government’s decision were labeled and could be dismissed collectively as one category.

Applying the stratagem also made it possible to discard opposing arguments on the grounds that they fail to follow catholic morality, thus insinuating that only catholic authority can mandate moral standards. Such a convenient position was supposed to change the debate about abortion into a greater conflict of Polish Christians versus others – those who subscribe to nihilism, an unclear philosophy with negative connotations. The ruse was successful to a certain degree because the biological, ethical, and legal nuances of abortion are far more complicated than a clear us-vs-them distinction, and consequently, many people will choose a simplified version of the dilemma.

In the times of highly trained and well paid spin doctors, PR specialists, and marketing agents, it is crucial for members of modern societies to be able to recognize various tricks used to influence their opinions. Historical thinkers may be of help, as they were the ones who invented or described various approaches to rhetoric or dialectic, and can consequently help arm the skeptic with proper tools to defend against media manipulation and disinformation.