How do you argue with someone you know if consciously lying?

[yurbud]

I actually teach argument in writing classes, and I've kind of touched the edges of this question a couple of times.

For the most part I've been guided by something Chomsky said, that it doesn't matter whether someone is sincere in what they say or merely saying it out of expediency, what matters is how they act.

However, if someone has a proven track record as a liar, being caught in lies and never acknowledging it, how do you deal with that without appearing to commit an ad hominem attack?

[existentialist]

1. Just try to make their lies obvious to the audience

That may be like advising an investor to buy low and sell high, but I guess that's all I've got except sympathy.

[goju]

2. Facts

Where sophistry fails, facts succeed. Short of that, a subtle smack in the face sometimes works :)

[BobBoudelangFan69]

3. Who Is Your Audience?

Does One Argue To Change the other's point of view? Is one trying to convince a third party? Does one talk to hear the sound of one's own voice?

[yurbud]

4. almost always third party--you can't change mind of someone paid

to believe something.

[ThoughtCriminal]

5. Pointing out past untruthfulness is not "Ad Hominem"

If there is a proven track record, then I would say there is a heavy burden on the defender to refute the record.

[mitchum]

10. Absolutely! It is empiricism

[Bluerthanblue]

6. doesn't it come down to

the issue of trust? Integrity? If a person knowingly tells a lie, or distorts truth- the ability to accept what they say, to trust in the genuine, or honest unadulterated truth is eroded.
Bush said Cheney didn't have a heart attack back in Nov. of 2000- even before he became vp- as it turns out he did indeed have a heart attack, and bush knew or is said to have been told of the facts including the stent that was inserted into his heart, before he made that statement-

Starting even before then, his words didn't square.

We should be held accountable for when we speak lies- and we should also expect people to question our future reliability when we have a history of lying or stretching/skewing the facts to 'fit' our agenda.

Not sure of the meaning of ad hominem attack as it is being questioned here-

[welshTerrier2]

7. interesting question

if you KNOW they are consciously lying, you must have information available that proves your case ... what you're implying is that you know they are "intentionally" distorting the truth ...

when i'm in that situation, i ask myself several questions ...

first, should i let the person get away with their lies ... if they're a friend and you don't want to strain the relationship, or the issue itself is not substantial, sometimes it's just better to let it go ...

but, if i choose to proceed to unmask their conscious lying, i usually use what i guess would be the Socratic method ... i ask them a series of questions (kind of what they knew and when they knew it) ... each question draws the net tighter and tighter towards their being forced to out themself by answering ... you might think of Perry Mason or Colombo ... "excuse me mam, but if the you just purchased this gun on Saturday at Al's Sporting Goods, how do explain that Al's was closed last weekend because of a fire?"

here's the most important point, though ... and too often, this is omitted from discussions on debating ... you really have to ask yourself what your ultimate objective is ... if it's to break someone down and rub their nose in their lie and "win", that's one thing ... and there are times you're angry and that is exactly what you're trying to do ...

HOWEVER, many debates and arguments i have really seek unity, not conflict ... my objective in debating is not to crush my opponent; it's to try to either reach a compromise OR to try to get them to agree with my point of view ... this means that, if that's your objective, you should always allow your adversary an "escape route" ... if you don't, they are forced to dig in and fight to the death ... if they have no exit, you're not allowing them the option to gracefully back away from their lie or their mistaken position ... if you really want them to see things your way, they have to have a comfortable avenue to go from where they started to where you want them to be ... if you don't "pave the way" for a graceful retreat, you're unlikely to get one ...

[pitohui]

8. unless you're on the debate team

you are rarely required to argue w. anybody except yr own children or teens and i'm sure you already have well-developed punishments for the lies

if it's a co-worker or the neighborhood sociopath, i would just avoid and ignore, no need to get drawn into their little world of petty attention-grabbing drama

if you are at a party or bar or other social event, simply walking off & talking to someone else abt something else will again deprive the liar of the desired drama reward

for extra maturity points, repress the urge to roll eyes or say "whatever" before walking off, if you just take off w.out a word of acknowledgement that's really best, but i freely admit that a "whatever" might escape my lips before i make my bodily escape from the liar

[yurbud]

12. online we have quite a few opportunities

[mitchum]

9. The "fallacy" of the ad hominem "attack" needs to be put to rest

That is ALWAYS the "defense" of the duplicitous
What is the nature of a thing?" Well...a liar lies.
Call them out on their bullshit AND call them out for being a bullshitter.

[LunaC]

11. Compulsive/repeated lying is the trademark of a sociopath

Their brains are different.

“Pathological liars have less grey matter and more white matter in their prefrontal cortex, according to a report in the October issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry. Gray matter consists of the cells that do the thinking, while white matter consists of the cells that connect them.

“…the more networking there is in the prefrontal cortex, the more the person has an upper hand in lying," said study co-author Adrian Raine, a professor of psychology at the University of Southern California (USC). "Their verbal skills are higher. They almost have a natural advantage."


Why bother debating a liar?

[Cleita]

13. Having known such people, who are pathological liars, I

have separated the type of lies. For instance years ago I knew a woman at work who constantly fabricated stories about herself. Since I never heard a lie out of her mouth that badmouthed or spread a rumor about anyone else, I ignored her.

However, I do confront those liars who spread rumors and lies for personal gain or out of spite. I don't think they should get away with it. The way to get around an ad hominem attack is to ask them if they said such a thing or did such a thing. This requires a yes or no answer. Hedging or changing the subject or insisting you had to explain first is not allowed. Tell them they can explain after replying yes or no.

Usually the liars will give themselves away with their own words if they deny they are at fault. Here is where you can pick on what they say, pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies. Ask them to elaborate. The further they sink into the lies, the more their credibility sinks.

What can you do to keep them from lying in the future? If we knew, there would be no more conservative media or politicians, a goal worth pursuing IMHO.