What’s good, homies and gentlebros. I spent last week aimlessly wandering campus, searching for meaning and purpose. My dreams are humble and few: to hear the sound of my own voice, get girls and be right all the time. After loitering outside the law school library, I came to a momentous realization: lawyers get laid. So, I’ve decided to follow my passion for smashin’ and go into law. As a philosopher, I’m a master of logical debate. When you don’t listen to anything the other person says, it’s surprisingly easy to win arguments! Also, I already passed the bar — they card in there, so I decided not to go in.
If you want to follow in my (size 11) footsteps (did I mention they’re size 11?) (I have big feet), then you’ll need to study the complex art of logical debate. Lucky for you, I’ve compiled this guide of Cole-tested, Cole-approved concepts to help you get started. You’ll be a regular Justice Bro-tomeyer in no time!
- The Basic Tenets of Argument
Let’s start with the basics: vocabulary. When a philosopher makes a logical argument, they begin by introducing a premise and a conclusion. Together these two things make a proposition. And as any good philosopher knows, the most logical way to successfully best any debate partner is to proposition them.
Now, propositioning doesn’t always work. Sometimes your opponent will attempt a rebuttal. No worries, homie-as corpus. Inform your opponent that you’re just not into butt stuff and if he really loves you, he’ll understand.
- Recognizing Argumentation in Language Structures
Next, it is important to realize that anything can be an argument. It’s very useful to learn some signal words that will let you know when an argument is afoot. These words include: because, therefore and whereas. Another way to tell if an argument is a foot is if I ask for a picture of it. What can I say, toe each man his own.
- The Many Faces of Reasoning
Another important part of creating a persuasive argument is understanding the different kinds of reasoning. First, there’s deductive reasoning, which is when you start out with a generalization and use it to draw a conclusion about a specific instance: I only date hot chicks. Kaitlyn is my ex-girl friend. Therefore, Kaitlyn is (unfortunately) hot.
Next, there’s inductive reasoning, which is when you start out with a specific instance and use it to make a generalization: Kaitlyn hurt me real bad. Kaitlyn is a woman. Therefore, all women are evil, soul-sucking harpies who want to drag their manicured claws across your unprotected heart.
Finally, there’s incucktive reasoning, this is when you start out winter quarter with a beautiful girlfriend who you love and who you think loves you and then you find out that she’s been rebutting all your best bros behind your back. F***k you, Kaitlyn. F***k you.
- Identifying Misinformation and Falsehoods
As I learned last quarter, it’s important to recognize lies, or, as they’re known in logical debates, fallacies. For example, a formal fallacy can be found by examining the structure of an argument. By contrast, a formal phallacy can be found by examining me wearing nothing but a Ken doll tuxedo jacket and a very small top hat (not on my head).
Once you understand these key ideas, I guarantee that you’ll win any oral argument (or even a missionary argument, but those are less fun). Good luck out there bros!
With tongue,
Cole Rungle
The Frat Boy Philosopher
Editor’s Note: This article is purely satirical and fictitious. All attributions in this article are not genuine, and this story should be read in the context of pure entertainment only.