<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Perhaps the Most Powerful Book I have read. Brilliant
Review: For those with a desire to increase their skill at argumentation, from formal debates to quiet negotiations at home to shouting matches in the street, this book offers some of the most powerful and effective weapons you will ever add to your arsenal. I question anyone who didn't find it of help, since the techniques held in this manual you do not use....you wield! I recommend "How to Win an Argument" By Michael Gilbert for those new to argumentation, as "Deception" will make much more sense with foreknowledge of the subject. Then move on to "Deception" and prepare to enter a training ground that will give you weapons and techniques so powerful, so devastating that they may be more than you even wanted. The strategies here are incredibly powerful, and are remarkably effective. Each chapter you will grow stronger and stronger until by the end you will be able to win or draw every argument you will face, and tear some people to pieces in the process. Believe me when I say that I have made people scream in fury at me, scream that they hate me after dismantling them with what I learned in this book. In some ways the book is too powerful. In some ways you will not even know your own strength after reading it. I recommend using Dale Carnegie techniques most of the time in life, but when you need to defend yourself in a verbal battle or lock up with another in a good old fashion argument, then "The Art of Deception" will provide you with an invaluable arsenal that will ready you for war. Watch in pleasure and even disbelief as you feel yourself roll effortlessly over your opponent, picking them apart like a bug, and watch in delight as they finally lose their temper and begin screaming in defeat. Ready yourself for the very fast paced types of arguments where you seem to be unable to even get a word in, but God help them when it's your turn, for you will usually be able to defeat your opponent in thirty seconds or less in this situation. Please be careful however, because some of the artillery that this book provides is so devastating that you can crush even a good friend in an argument easily and make them very angry, and you may not even mean to.
Learn the basic argument structures such as valid and sound syllogisms which form the building blocks of argumentation. Learn how to build and present a nearly invincible case. Learn how to refute an opponent's argument, and defend you own from attack. Then learn how to catch people in fallacies and tear them apart by identifying weak points in their case. Be trained how to attack and defend brilliantly from any front and direction. Additionally, one of the most devastating weapons, learn how to use fallacies themselves as valid weapons and watch your hapless opponent writhe in agony and drown in a pool of defeat. If you're going to get into verbal confrontations in the future, this is the next best thing to punching them in the face. Become invincible in argumentation, read the masterpiece, "The Art of Deception"
Rating: 
Summary: Good Intentions, Faulty Execution
Review: I appreciate what the author was trying to do: teach logic and rhetoric in a fun how-to-succeed format. I don't think it works very well, though. It's too disjointed to be helpful to the beginner and too familiar to be interesting to more advanced students.For the beginner: To learn logic, start out with David Kelley's "The Art of Reasoning" and Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic". To learn rhetoric and argumentation, try David Zarefsky's audiotape course on "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning" and his books on public speaking. More advanced students will want to check out Chaim Perelman's books on rhetoric and Douglas N. Walton's studies of informal fallacies. An excellent but out-of-print book is William J. Brandt's "The Rhetoric of Argumentation" which gives detailed analyses of effective and ineffective rhetorical strategies in essay-writing.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't let title deceive you
Review: I read the book. As a lawyer, I'm always looking to improve my skills. I believe it was Aristotle (or some dead Greek) who warned about bad men in command of good rhetoric, and I suppose the same could be said about intentionally deceptive people, as Capaldi illustrates. (Without `fingering' any particular public person from the last few years.)
"It takes one to catch one," as the saying goes regarding thieves. If you want to catch someone not `playing' fairly, for example, a prosecutor condemning the heinous crime of murder, when the issue is the guilt or innocence of the defendant, this book illustrates things you need to keep in mind. I thought the intent of the title was obvious but it was apparently not clear to some readers.
I did not understand him to advocate the use of deceptive logic; however, of course one can be a sophist with logic. I believe all Capaldi does is try to provide the rules and then show how they are broken. He points out that even after taking his course many students still can't spot simple informal logical fallacies. In sum, even if you are a `straight shooter'--or try to be--that doesn't mean the other guy is.
After a careful re-reading of this book, I believe it allows you to at least make a choice in the new year whether you want to be `good' (dazzle 'em with logic) or `bad' (baffle 'em with, well, you know).
USA! (ad populum)
Rating:
Summary: There are better writings on this subject
Review: I would not like to be the author of a book and have to read a review of it like the one I feel I must write on this one. However, I am a learning addict, particularly an audiobook addict (well spent car time) on professional and personal growth. While there are undeniably excellent points made and material covered in this book, I found it to be presented in a manner which brought out the worst attention deficit in me. This reader is that memorable professor who's monotone lectures bored you and put you to sleep in college. No question the man is an authority on the topic(s) that this book intends to address for our gain. However, given his writing and reading style, I believe his own mastery would be better served if used for his own personal and career benefit rather than for his attempt to pass great wisdom on to us who choose which book or books to spend our money and time on to gain or strengthen these skills. I continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek an audiobook on the topic of debate. There are hundreds in print and apparently none currently on audio worth your or my money.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Points; Somewhat Disjointed
Review: Ironically, this book's TITLE can be deceptive to the unsuspecting reader. This book does not attempt to extoll the virtues of deception or dispense Machiavellian thought to the masses. Instead, the book is meant as a comprehensive guide to the finer points or argumentation and debate. A persevering reader may leave this book with a deeper appreciation for the art of argumentation. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the same holds true for the average reader. A few interesting points are left scattered in a book that is often too long and too confusing. I would imagine that this book would appeal to logicians, philosophers, and lawyers who have labored in the fields of logic, debate, and argumentation throughout the majority of their adult lives. But for others who would like to become more eloquent speakers, I recommend that you look elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Good idea poor execution
Review: The book mainly promotes the use of deception over reason. I know you're thinking, duh. But this is contrary to what the author says in the introduction. The deception is supposed to be used as a device to aid in learning informal logic, not as a tool to crush others. The author has a very aggressive and pretentious tone. Capaldi, the author, encourages people to be stubborn and uncompromising rather than problem solving. This book is classic sophism. I think the most valuable part of this book is the appendix. The practice problems are nice to look over. This book is effective at being uncompromising, but that is incompatible with being a good communicator. I should have borrowed this one. Since, I want my money back. -laughs- Also, the references to the "Great Books" by the author were interesting, but extraneous in my opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Good Weapon Against the Trogs
Review: The techniques outlined in this book are good when you are arguing against yahoos and troglodytes. If taken to heart, this book can help you can vanquish almost everyone you encounter in day-to-day life. Do NOT use these techniques against more skillful opponents or against sincere, intelligent questioners seeking real answers to important questions. These are powerful debater's tricks, not tools for getting to the bottom of honest inquiries. Caveat emptor.
Rating:
Summary: Good Place To Start!
Review: This book is written for the amateur student of logic and rhetoric (Like Me). Mr. Capaldi is very good at not only showing what to do, but perhaps more importantly what not to do in a debate. He doesn't hold-up the pretense of being soley acedemic. For Example, he instructs the reader never to give up while in a debate, I.E., admit that you're wrong. This book is filled with what could be called Real World Debating Advice. He shows how to avoid sophism and fallacy, and teaches the Latin Words for these arguments, because he says, they make you sound better.
My only complaint with the book is that in the attempt to teach good arguments by showing bad ones he might encourage a disreputable and unscrupulous person to use them to their advantage. It's like those Head-Shops that sell Bongs for "Tobacco Use Only" when everyone knows what they're really for. Oh Well.
I also particulary liked the evaluation at the back of the book to see how well you've learned. I'd Recommend it, but it should be supplemented with other books on this topic. Dustin
Rating:
Summary: Other books on the subject are better
Review: Who open scroll always profit says an ancient Chinese motto. The same applies to books. I profited from reading this one, but I didn't profit much or enough. The work is uneven and needs focus. The title is poor because it misnames the subject of the book which is, incidentally, not how to win an anrgument, but how to think clearly. Some of the author's points would have passed me by and probably other points would have been downright confusing had I not had a background in logic. And one wonders about a book on the Art of Deception deceiving people into believing that the book is one thing when it is really about something else. Perhaps some well meaning editior or PR person mispersuaded the author to use this fake and phony title in the hope of increased sales. A few bones: I don't like the word argument because of its two meanings. Demonstration is better. The formal analysis of arguments (my demonstrations) in chapter three hits the reader on the head: Although it is technically correct, without a background in formal logic you might get lost fast. The chapter could have done better explaining the differences between contraries and contradictions and the reasons for the other errors which are never clearly stated. The author just assumes the reader will get it when I have a feeling derived from teaching logic for years that they won't and don't. For intstance, why the undistributed middle term invalidates a proof is clear to me only because I knew it from previous studies, and thought long and hard about it, not from what the author says here in his book. And the worst sin of all: Somewhere in the middle of the discussion of groupthink, the author seems to get bored with his own discussion. No wonder the reader nods off. Those interested in improving their critical thinking should read Asking the Right Questions. Those interested in understanding errors in logic might consult The Art of Argument by St. Aubyn, a book that hits hard where we need improvement by showing us the common errors of thinking of overgeneralization, false analogy, vague definition, and partial selection of the evidence.
<< 1 >>
|
