Book Notes #61: The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer

Title: The Art of Being Right
Author: Arthur Schopenhauer
Year: 1891
Pages: 136

Most of us like to believe that good arguments win on reason alone—but anyone who’s ever lost a debate to someone clearly wrong knows that’s not always the case.

In The Art of Always Being Right, Arthur Schopenhauer doesn’t sugarcoat it. He lays out the tactics people use—not to uncover truth—but to win.

It’s sharp, cynical, and surprisingly relevant for today’s world of heated meetings, online arguments, and everyday conversations.

This book isn’t about becoming a manipulator. It’s about recognizing the game, so you’re not played by it.

Through practical examples and witty observations, The Art of Being Right sheds light on the subtle nuances of rhetoric, helping readers understand how to effectively navigate intellectual battles and strengthen their persuasive abilities.

As a result, I gave this book a rating of 7.5/10.

For me, a book with a note 10 is one I consider reading again every year. Among the books I rank with 10, for example, are How to Win Friends and Influence People and Factfulness.

3 Reasons to Read The Art of Being Right

Book Overview

Ever walked away from a conversation wondering how someone managed to “win” the argument—even though they were clearly wrong? That frustrating moment when logic was on your side, but somehow the other person walked away triumphant, smug smile and all. That’s exactly the kind of situation Arthur Schopenhauer unpacks in The Art of Always Being Right. It’s not a book about truth. It’s a book about tactics. And once you’ve read it, you’ll never look at a debate—or a heated meeting—the same way again.

What makes this short book so fascinating is how it holds up a mirror to the way people argue when they care more about winning than being right. Schopenhauer doesn’t pretend these tactics are noble or fair. In fact, some are downright sneaky. But he lays them out plainly, one by one, as if to say: this is how it works, whether you like it or not.

At its heart, the book is a collection of 38 rhetorical tricks people use to gain the upper hand in debates. And they’re not about facts or reason. They’re about psychology, perception, and control. You’ll find moves like generalizing your opponent’s specific point just enough to make it sound ridiculous. Or twisting the meaning of a word—using a homonym—to make their argument fall apart. Or pretending to agree, only to subtly redirect the conversation toward your real target. These are tactics that don’t necessarily bring us closer to the truth, but they’re painfully effective in making someone look wrong.

One of the most striking chapters explores how anger signals a weak point. The moment someone starts getting emotional, it’s often a sign you’ve hit a nerve. And if you can stay calm while they lose composure, you gain the upper hand. It’s a sharp reminder that debates aren’t just about logic—they’re battles of self-control and presentation.

Another powerful idea is the use of authority. Instead of building a case with reason, just quote a famous figure or respected institution. Even if it’s not relevant, it feels persuasive. Schopenhauer isn’t endorsing these tactics. He’s exposing them. And once you see them in action, you can’t unsee them—whether it’s in political debates, workplace meetings, or even family discussions.

The brilliance of this book is how timeless it is. Written in the 19th century, it feels oddly suited for today’s world—where arguments happen in comment sections, social media threads, and news debates, all filled with people more interested in “scoring points” than understanding one another. Schopenhauer’s insights show that the tools of manipulation haven’t changed much; they’ve just become more visible.

But this isn’t just a manual for dirty tricks. It’s also a defense guide. By recognizing these tactics, you’re better equipped to deal with them. When someone tries to throw you off by interrupting, or drags the conversation into absurd territory, you’ll spot it—and steer things back on track. It’s like learning the moves in a game that everyone’s already playing, whether they admit it or not.

In the end, The Art of Always Being Right isn’t a call to use these strategies—but to be aware of them. Schopenhauer knew that logic doesn’t always win, and this book is his way of preparing us for that uncomfortable truth.

It’s witty, a bit cynical, and deeply insightful. And whether you’re trying to sharpen your own thinking or simply survive your next office debate, it’s a quick but powerful read that will change the way you approach arguments forever.

Strategy 1 – The Extension: Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend him or her.

Strategy 2 – The Homonymy: Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his or her argument.

Strategy 3 – Generalize Your Opponent’s Specific Statements: Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.

Strategy 4 – Conceal Your Game: Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitous route, you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.

Strategy 5 – False Propositions: Use your opponent’s beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.

Strategy 6 – Postulate What Has to Be Proved: Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.

Strategy 7 – Yield Admissions Through Questions: State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent’s admissions.

Strategy 8 – Make Your Opponent Angry: An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

Strategy 9 – Questions in Detouring Order: Use your opponent’s answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

Strategy 10 – Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer: If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.

Strategy 11 – Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases: If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.

Strategy 12 – Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition: If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.

Strategy 13 – Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition: To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him or her an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.

Strategy 14 – Claim Victory Despite Defeat: Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.

Strategy 15 – Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions: If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent’s acceptance or rejection of some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he or she suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject a true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your own for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what the opponent accepted. For this, an extreme degree of impudence is required.

Strategy 16 – Arguments Ad Hominem: When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.

Strategy 17 – Defense Through Subtle Distinction: If your opponent presses you with counterproof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent’s idea.

Strategy 18 – Interrupt, Break, or Divert the Dispute: If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

Strategy 19 – Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it: Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his or her argument, and you have nothing much to say, try to make the argument less specific.

Strategy 20 – Draw Conclusions Yourself: If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion. Rather draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

Strategy 21 – Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His: When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counterargument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with a victory that you are concerned, and not with truth.

Strategy 22 – Petitio principii: If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

Strategy 23 – Make Him Exaggerate His Statement: Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his or her statements. By contracting your opponent you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefining your statement’s limits.

Strategy 24 – State a False Syllogism: This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition and by false inference and distortion of his or her ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears the opponent’s proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.

Strategy 25 – Find One Instance to the Contrary: If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent’s proposition.

Strategy 26 – Turn the Tables: A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against him or herself.

Strategy 27 – Anger Indicates a Weak Point: Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. Not only will this make the opponent angry, but it may also be presumed that you put your finger on the weak side of his or her case and that the opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.

Strategy 28 – Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent: This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.

Strategy 29 – Diversion: If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter is disposed of. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

Strategy 30 – Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason: Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those that he or she generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely yourself.

Strategy 31 – This Is Beyond Me: If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.

Strategy 32 – Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category: A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

Strategy 33 – It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice: You admit your opponent’s premises but deny the conclusion.

Strategy 34 – Don’t Let Him Off the Hook: When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

Strategy 35 – Will Is More Effective Than Insight: This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent’s opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponent will drop it like a hot potato.

Strategy 36 – Bewilder Your opponent with Mere Bombast: You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If the opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he or she has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him or her some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.

Strategy 37 – A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position: Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way in which bad advocates lose a good case. If no accurate proof occurs to the opponent or the bystanders, you have won the day.

Strategy 38 – Become Personal, Insulting, Rude: A last trick is to become personal, insulting, and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick because everyone is able to carry it into effect.

Chapter by Chapter

Chapter 1 – Extension

Schopenhauer begins by describing the trick of Extension, which involves expanding your opponent’s statement beyond its natural limits in order to make it easier to refute. This tactic allows you to exaggerate the opponent’s argument, applying it to situations where it doesn’t belong. By stretching the scope of their argument, you can easily knock it down, even though the original point was narrow and defensible.

For instance, if someone argues that English drama is superior, an opponent might try to extend this to all theatrical forms, including opera, which doesn’t fit the original claim. Schopenhauer suggests that to defend your position, you should narrow your own claim back down to its specific, original scope.

This chapter shows how argumentation can be manipulated by altering the boundaries of the discussion. Instead of debating the specific point at hand, the tactic turns the discussion into something broader and easier to win, even though the original statement was valid.

Chapter 2 – Homonyms

In this chapter, Schopenhauer discusses Homonyms, a trick where you use a word that has multiple meanings in a debate. By exploiting the ambiguity of language, you can refute your opponent’s argument by interpreting the same word in a completely different context, leading them to believe you’ve disproven their point.

For example, in a debate about honor, one side might claim that a person’s honor is tied to their actions, while the other argues that it can be damaged by an insult. By using the word honor in its different senses—personal honor versus social reputation—you can make it seem like the opponent has contradicted themselves.

This chapter illustrates how language games can be used to win an argument by forcing your opponent into a semantic trap. It’s a subtle form of deception where the focus shifts away from the real issue to the words used.

Chapter 3 – Generalise your opponent’s specific statements

Schopenhauer introduces the tactic of generalizing your opponent’s specific statements to make them sound too broad and open to criticism. This strategy involves taking a particular point your opponent has made and interpreting it as a universal claim, which can then be easily attacked.

For instance, if someone argues that Hegel’s writing is often nonsensical, you might generalize their statement to claim all philosophy is nonsense. This shifts the focus from the original critique to a much broader, debatable claim, making it easier to argue against.

This chapter highlights how shifting the target of an argument can create openings to attack, turning specific, nuanced claims into exaggerated, debatable ones.

Chapter 4 – Conceal your game

Schopenhauer presents Conceal your game as a strategy where you hide your true objective in the debate, allowing you to lead the discussion in a direction that benefits you without your opponent realizing it. Instead of revealing your ultimate aim, you carefully guide the conversation and get your opponent to admit pieces that eventually build your case.

This trick is about strategic maneuvering, getting your opponent to unknowingly agree to terms or premises that lead to your desired conclusion. It’s a way of winning through subtlety, rather than through direct confrontation.

By using this tactic, the focus of the argument remains unclear, and the opponent is often unaware that they’re helping you strengthen your position, making this an effective but covert strategy.

Chapter 5 – False premises

The tactic of False premises involves starting with premises that are not true but are accepted by your opponent. From these false premises, you construct an argument that seems logically sound. The key is that your opponent either doesn’t recognize the falsehood of the premises or they’re unwilling to challenge them.

An example might be if your opponent is using a flawed or outdated theory to support their argument. Instead of attacking the specific conclusion, you could dismantle the false assumptions they’ve based their reasoning on. This is a way of refuting arguments at their foundation, without directly confronting their conclusion.

This tactic shows how false assumptions can subtly shape an argument, and how powerful it is to address them early on to discredit the entire discussion.

Chapter 6 – Postulate what has to be proven

In this chapter, Schopenhauer explains the strategy of Postulating what has to be proven, which involves assuming the truth of something that needs to be proven as if it’s already established. This allows you to move forward with your argument as though the critical point is no longer in question.

For example, if you’re trying to prove that a particular philosophy is true, you might assume that everyone agrees with the foundational idea, and just move on to its implications. The key here is shifting the burden of proof so your opponent has to prove that what you’ve assumed is false.

This tactic subtly avoids addressing the core dispute, allowing the debater to continue as if their position is unassailable.

Chapter 7 – Yield admissions through questions

Schopenhauer describes a tactic where you gain admissions from your opponent by asking leading questions. This is a form of Socratic questioning, where you ask questions that force your opponent to admit certain truths, which can then be used to support your argument.

The trick lies in how you frame the questions—by asking the right ones, you get the opponent to concede facts that can be used to your advantage. This is a strategic form of dialogue where you are not just listening to responses but actively shaping the conversation to reveal weaknesses in your opponent’s position.

The art here is in how you ask the right questions and gather evidence for your side without them realizing it.

Chapter 8 – Make your opponent angry

Schopenhauer argues that making your opponent angry is an effective strategy because it clouds their judgment, causing them to lose focus on the real issues. When your opponent is emotional, they are more likely to make mistakes or say things that weaken their position.

This tactic works by provoking your opponent into anger, making them react emotionally instead of logically. When they get angry, they lose control of their arguments, and you can capitalize on their mistakes to make your position stronger.

This chapter highlights the power of emotions in debate and how emotional manipulation can be a clever way to gain the upper hand.

Chapter 9 – Question in detouring order

Schopenhauer describes a trick where you ask questions in an order that doesn’t follow the natural flow of the argument, leading your opponent to misunderstand your true aim. By rearranging the questions, you can confuse your opponent and direct the conversation in a way that benefits you.

For example, instead of asking questions that directly address your opponent’s point, you ask a sequence of unrelated questions that make them lose track of the original discussion. This forces them to give answers that don’t directly address the core issue, allowing you to twist their words into something that fits your narrative.

The tactic is about disrupting the flow of a structured debate, making your opponent distracted and easier to defeat.

Chapter 10 – Take advantage of the no-sayer

In this chapter, Schopenhauer explains how to take advantage of a “no-sayer”, someone who tends to say no to everything without offering a valid counter-argument. By leading this person into a dilemma, you can force them into a position where both options you offer are favorable to your side.

For example, if your opponent is consistently saying no to your arguments without offering any justification, you can ask them whether they agree with one statement or another. No matter which one they choose, you can use it to further your point.

This tactic works because a no-sayer can easily be trapped into agreeing with something they didn’t intend to, and their refusal to engage constructively gives you more space to argue effectively.

Chapter 11 – Generalise admissions of specific cases

Schopenhauer describes the strategy of generalizing admissions of specific cases, which involves taking specific points your opponent agrees with and expanding them to apply to the larger argument. This allows you to use their own words to support your side, even if they only agreed to specific instances.

For example, if your opponent admits that some businesses have successfully implemented a strategy, you can generalize this to say that all businesses can benefit from the same approach. By taking their specific agreement and applying it broadly, you manipulate their concessions to strengthen your own position.

This tactic relies on taking small wins and blowing them out of proportion to fit your argument.

Chapter 12 – Choose metaphors favourable to your proposition

In this chapter, Schopenhauer emphasizes the power of choosing metaphors that are favorable to your argument. A well-chosen metaphor can frame your position in a way that makes it much harder for your opponent to refute, while also making their position look weaker.

For instance, if you’re discussing a political issue, you might describe it as a “battle” to evoke a sense of urgency and struggle, making it sound like your side is fighting for something crucial. On the other hand, your opponent’s side might be portrayed as “indifferent” or lacking in resolve.

The key here is that metaphors shape perception, and the right metaphor can sway the audience to view your argument more favorably, even if it doesn’t directly prove the point.

Chapter 13 – Agree to reject the counter-argument

Schopenhauer discusses the tactic of agreeing to reject the counter-argument, where you accept that your opponent has made their point but then dismantle it by putting forward a stronger argument. This technique is useful when you need to appear reasonable and fair, yet still maintain control over the debate.

The trick here is to concede the legitimacy of the opponent’s counter-argument, but then present a new, stronger argument that overshadows it. This allows you to neutralize their objections and take the upper hand without being dismissive or confrontational.

This approach makes you appear reasonable and thoughtful, while subtly ensuring that your opponent’s argument doesn’t hold up against yours.

Chapter 14 – Claim victory despite defeat

Schopenhauer introduces a bold tactic where you claim victory even if you’ve lost the argument. The trick is to assert your victory loudly and confidently, making it seem like you’ve come out on top, even if your argument has been dismantled.

For instance, if you’ve lost a point in the debate, you can simply declare that the question has been settled, or that your opponent has conceded defeat. The idea is that confidence and persistence can make others believe that you’ve won, even when the facts don’t support it.

This tactic relies on the power of perception, showing that how you present yourself in an argument is often as important as the actual substance of what you’re saying.

Chapter 15 – Use seemingly absurd propositions

In this chapter, Schopenhauer discusses how to use seemingly absurd propositions to confuse your opponent or create doubt. By introducing paradoxical or outrageous statements, you can throw your opponent off balance, making them seem unreasonable for dismissing it outright.

For example, if you argue that “everything we know is wrong”, your opponent might become defensive, but in doing so, they may be forced to address the absurdity of the claim, which only shifts the focus of the debate away from the actual issue.

The beauty of this tactic lies in its ability to create cognitive dissonance, where your opponent must either concede something they don’t want to or waste time disproving something that isn’t central to the debate.

Chapter 16 – Use your opponent’s views

Schopenhauer explains how to use your opponent’s views against them by reframing their arguments in a way that serves your position. The trick is to twist their words or highlight unintended consequences of their argument to weaken their position.

For instance, if your opponent argues that freedom of speech should have limits, you could point out that their stance could justify censorship. By reinterpreting their argument, you show how their ideas lead to something they might not endorse, thus turning their words into a weapon against them.

This tactic is powerful because it subtly shifts the argument without overtly challenging the opponent’s views, making it hard for them to defend themselves without appearing contradictory.

Chapter 17 – Defense through subtle distinction

Schopenhauer describes defending your position through subtle distinctions that seem minor but actually reveal weaknesses in the opponent’s reasoning. The idea is to find a small detail that separates your position from theirs, allowing you to claim that your argument is more nuanced and, therefore, stronger.

For example, if your opponent argues that a law is unjust, you can subtly distinguish between the intentions behind the law and its outcomes, suggesting that the law, while flawed, serves a greater purpose. This tactic allows you to deflect attacks by refining your stance, rather than defending it in broad terms.

By emphasizing small differences, you can avoid the main point of the argument and shift the conversation towards more manageable ground.

Chapter 18 – Interrupt, break-up, divert the dispute

Schopenhauer discusses the tactic of interrupting, breaking up, or diverting the dispute when it’s not going in your favor. Instead of defending your position, you can disrupt the flow of the argument, leading the conversation away from the difficult topic and toward an easier point.

For example, if an opponent is winning a particular point, you might interrupt and introduce a side issue, such as a tangential question or a personal anecdote. This diverts attention away from their strong argument, interrupting their momentum and giving you a chance to regain control.

This chapter emphasizes how distraction and misdirection can be powerful tools in an argument, especially when the stakes are high.

Chapter 19 – Generalise the matter, then argue against it

In this chapter, Schopenhauer explains the tactic of generalizing the matter to the point where you can argue against the broad idea, rather than the specifics. By expanding the issue to a larger scale, you can make your opponent’s position seem inconsistent or irrational when, in fact, they were only arguing a small point.

For example, if someone argues that a certain form of government is effective, you might generalize their statement to claim that all forms of government are flawed, thereby attacking a much larger and harder-to-defend concept. By focusing on a bigger picture, you shift the conversation away from the narrow issue at hand.

This technique allows you to avoid directly addressing your opponent’s specific point and instead challenge the idea on a larger, more abstract level.

Chapter 20 – Draw conclusions yourself

Schopenhauer describes a technique where you draw conclusions yourself rather than relying on the evidence provided by your opponent. This tactic involves asserting your conclusions before they’ve been proven, which can mislead your audience into believing that your arguments are sound, even when they aren’t.

For example, instead of discussing evidence that supports a theory, you might simply state the conclusion, as though it’s already been established. By doing this, you move the conversation forward without having to justify the logic behind your argument.

This tactic relies on confidence and persuasion: by speaking with certainty, you convince others that your conclusions are indisputable, regardless of the actual evidence.

Chapter 21 – Counter with an argument as bad as his

In this chapter, Schopenhauer advises countering a weak argument with an equally weak or absurd one, forcing your opponent to refute the obviously flawed reasoning. The aim is to make the opponent seem unreasonable for rejecting something so clearly fallacious, rather than allowing them to focus on the genuine points of contention.

For example, if your opponent argues that vegetarianism is the only ethical diet, you could counter by arguing that eating only raw food is the only truly ethical diet, which forces them to defend their own argument against a clearly extreme and ridiculous claim. This distracts from their real point and undermines their credibility.

By presenting a bad argument, you shift the debate into territory where your opponent must fight off absurdity, allowing you to claim victory by making them appear unreasoned.

Chapter 22 – Beg the question

Schopenhauer explains the tactic of begging the question, where you assume the truth of the very thing you are trying to prove. By doing so, you bypass the need to actually support your argument with facts, instead presenting the conclusion as if it’s already established.

For example, if someone argues that democracy is the best form of government, they might beg the question by asserting that democracy is the best because it’s the fairest system without actually explaining why fairness makes it superior. The argument becomes circular, where the conclusion is simply restated as the premise.

This tactic allows you to avoid real debate by relying on unproven assumptions.

Chapter 23 – Make him exaggerate

In this chapter, Schopenhauer explores the tactic of making your opponent exaggerate their own argument, which often leads to overstatements that are easier to refute. By pushing your opponent to expand their position beyond reasonable limits, you create a situation where their argument becomes too extreme to defend.

For example, if your opponent argues that climate change is a serious threat, you might push them to say things like “the world is ending” or that “we’re all going to die soon”, making their argument seem exaggerated and hysterical. Once they’ve overreached, you can easily counter their exaggerated claims and weaken their position.

This tactic is all about encouraging your opponent to stretch their argument to a point where it becomes unreasonable, allowing you to easily win by highlighting their exaggeration.

Chapter 24 – State a false syllogism

Schopenhauer discusses the tactic of stating a false syllogism, which involves presenting a flawed logical argument that seems valid at first glance but is actually built on faulty premises. A syllogism is a form of reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two premises. In this case, the trick is to present a false or invalid syllogism as though it is correct.

For example, someone might argue: “All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” While this is logically sound, you could falsely state a syllogism, such as: “All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly.” By making a false syllogism sound reasonable, you trick your opponent into accepting it unless they notice the error.

This tactic relies on presenting a well-structured argument that misleads through incorrect premises, creating the illusion of sound logic.

Chapter 25 – Find the instance to the contrary

In this chapter, Schopenhauer advises finding an instance to the contrary in order to disprove a generalization made by your opponent. The key here is to attack the general principle by finding a single counterexample that contradicts their argument, making their broad claim seem invalid.

For instance, if someone argues that all CEOs are greedy, you could find an example of a CEO who is known for giving away their wealth or investing in social causes. This isolates the flaw in their argument by proving that their generalization is not universally true.

By finding just one example that goes against the grain, you challenge the validity of the generalization, forcing your opponent to defend their sweeping statement.

Chapter 26 – Turn the tables

Schopenhauer introduces the tactic of turning the tables on your opponent, where you shift the burden of proof to them. Instead of defending your position, you accuse your opponent of the very thing they’re accusing you of, forcing them to explain and justify their own claims.

For example, if your opponent argues that you are being unreasonable, you might counter by asking them to prove why their position is more reasonable than yours. This tactic puts them on the defensive, making them justify their argument instead of you justifying yours.

This clever strategy involves redirecting the debate and forcing your opponent to defend their own position, often leading them into a weaker position.

Chapter 27 – Anger indicates a weak point

Schopenhauer explains that anger indicates a weak point in an argument. When your opponent becomes angry or emotional, it often shows that they are losing control or that their argument is weak. Anger causes people to lash out instead of maintaining their logic, which creates an opportunity to capitalize on their emotions.

For example, if your opponent is getting increasingly frustrated with your arguments, you might choose to calmly ask more questions or point out their emotional response, which undermines their rationality. This can make their argument appear less credible to the audience and give you an opening to make your case stronger.

This chapter emphasizes that emotional responses are often a sign that the other side has no strong logical counter-arguments, making it a chance for you to assert control over the debate.

Chapter 28 – Persuade the audience, not the opponent

In this chapter, Schopenhauer advises that in a debate, the real goal often isn’t to convince your opponent, but to persuade the audience. While it might be difficult or even impossible to change your opponent’s mind, winning over the audience is the key to victory.

For example, if you’re arguing in a public setting, you might use emotional appeals or rhetorical flourishes that make the audience see your point of view rather than focusing solely on logical debate with the opponent. This shift in focus helps you build support even if your opponent isn’t persuaded.

The key takeaway here is that in many debates, it’s the perception of victory among the audience that matters most, not the factual correctness of the argument.

Chapter 29 – Diversion

Schopenhauer describes diversion as a technique to shift attention from the real issue by introducing irrelevant topics or side arguments. This distracts your opponent from the main issue, making it easier to win the debate by deflecting attention.

For instance, if your opponent is winning a point on economic policy, you might suddenly ask them about an unrelated social issue to divert the conversation away from their strong argument. By doing this, you avoid addressing the core issue and create confusion in the debate.

This tactic works by creating a distraction, forcing your opponent to address something they hadn’t planned on and throwing them off course.

Chapter 30 – Appeal to authority rather than reason

Schopenhauer explains the tactic of appealing to authority rather than reason, which involves citing a respected figure or institution to back up your argument rather than relying on logical reasoning or evidence. By invoking authority, you hope to sway the debate in your favor based on the credibility of the source, even if the authority is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

For example, if you’re arguing about health benefits, you might refer to medical experts or studies, not necessarily because they directly support your point, but because the authority of these sources makes your position appear more credible. This shifts the focus from reasoning to reputation.

This chapter shows how credibility and social influence can sometimes be used to mask weak arguments, emphasizing how easily appeals to authority can be used to manipulate the audience’s perception of an argument.

Chapter 31 – This is beyond me

In this chapter, Schopenhauer discusses the tactic of claiming that a topic is “beyond you”, meaning you’re unable to understand it, in order to avoid engaging with a complex or difficult issue. By saying that something is too complicated for you to grasp, you put the burden on the opponent to explain it to you in simpler terms, making it their responsibility to address the issue.

For example, if someone presents an overly technical argument, instead of trying to engage with it, you might simply state, “This is beyond me.” This tactic effectively shifts the focus from defending your position to requiring the opponent to justify theirs at a level that is more digestible.

By using this technique, you effectively opt-out of the conversation without losing face, forcing your opponent to do the heavy lifting of explanation.

Chapter 32 – Put his thesis into some odious category

Schopenhauer suggests putting your opponent’s thesis into an odious category to make it seem undesirable, rather than debating its merits. By associating your opponent’s argument with something negative or disliked, you can make their position seem less appealing to the audience.

For example, if your opponent argues for free-market capitalism, you might liken their argument to exploitation or greed, thus framing their position as something morally repugnant. This deflects attention from the actual points being made and focuses on the negative associations of the argument, making it harder for them to defend their position without appearing unappealing.

This tactic works because it frames the debate emotionally, and people tend to reject ideas that they associate with something odious or unpleasant.

Chapter 33 – It applies in theory, but not in practice

In this chapter, Schopenhauer introduces the strategy of claiming that a theory sounds good in principle, but fails when put into practice. This tactic involves undermining the practical feasibility of your opponent’s position, even if it seems logically sound in theory.

For example, if someone argues that universal healthcare would be beneficial, you might agree with the concept in theory but then argue that it cannot work in practice due to financial constraints or implementation difficulties. This shifts the argument from theoretical discussion to practical realities, and often creates doubt in the mind of the audience.

This tactic is powerful because it questions the practicality of an argument, making it seem idealistic or impractical rather than grounded in real-world application.

Chapter 34 – Don’t let him off the hook

Schopenhauer discusses the tactic of not letting your opponent off the hook when they’re caught in a weak or vulnerable position. The idea is to press them on a particular point, forcing them to repeatedly defend their position until it breaks down, rather than allowing them to sidestep or change the subject.

For instance, if your opponent fails to provide evidence for a claim, you persistently bring them back to the same question, making them restate or defend their initial argument over and over. This keeps the pressure on, making it difficult for them to escape without conceding.

This tactic is about ensuring that your opponent never escapes scrutiny, forcing them to constantly defend what they’ve already said, even if they don’t have the facts to support it.

Chapter 35 – Will is more effective than insight

In this chapter, Schopenhauer asserts that will—the strength of your determination—is often more effective in debates than insight or reason. Even if your argument lacks depth, being persistent and unwavering in your position can wear down the other side and make it seem as though you are the one in the right.

For example, if your opponent is presenting a well-reasoned argument but you continuously insist on your stance with strong conviction, the force of your will might eventually sway the audience, even if your points aren’t as logical. The power of will here involves making people believe that you are right because of your determination, rather than the actual strength of your arguments.

This chapter shows how confidence and persistence can sometimes overcome logic, influencing the outcome of a debate more than the quality of the reasoning.

Chapter 36 – The Vicar of Wakefield

Schopenhauer references The Vicar of Wakefield, a novel by Oliver Goldsmith, to describe how shifting the focus to an unrelated emotional story can win sympathy in a debate. By appealing to emotions through personal stories or anecdotes, you can make your opponent seem cold-hearted or unfeeling, while you appear more compassionate and relatable.

For example, if you are debating a political issue, you might tell a personal story about how a policy has affected your life, drawing the audience’s sympathy. This emotional appeal shifts the focus from logical debate to personal feelings, allowing you to win over the audience’s heart, even if your logical arguments are weak.

This tactic shows how emotional storytelling can be a powerful persuasive tool, turning the tide of an argument without needing to prove anything logically.

Chapter 37 – A faulty proof refutes his whole position

In this chapter, Schopenhauer explains that if your opponent presents a faulty proof for a particular argument, you can use this flaw to discredit their entire position. By highlighting a single error in their reasoning, you can invalidate all of their claims, even if the rest of their argument seems sound.

For instance, if your opponent is arguing that certain policies will lead to economic growth, and they base their argument on a false statistic or a logical fallacy, you can expose the error and argue that because their proof is flawed, all of their conclusions must be incorrect.

This tactic relies on the principle that credibility is built on the strength of your evidence. By showing that a single part of their proof is wrong, you undermine the entire structure of their argument, making it easier to win the debate.

Chapter 38 – The ultimate strategy

Schopenhauer concludes with the ultimate strategy for winning any debate, which is simply to appear right and to maintain your ground. The essence of this final tactic is confidence, presenting your argument with such certainty and authority that others are less likely to challenge it.

Instead of worrying about logical flaws or subtle details, the idea is to project confidence and control the narrative. The more you assert that your point is correct, the more likely you are to convince others of your position, regardless of the actual merit of your argument.

This strategy is effective because it relies on psychological influence: people often follow the confident speaker, even if they don’t fully understand the content of their argument. By exuding certainty, you become the dominant presence in the debate, making it harder for others to contradict you.

4 Key Ideas from The Art of Being Right

6 Main Lessons from The Art of Being Right

My Book Highlights & Quotes

There are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself

It is easy to say that we must yield to truth, without any prepossession in favour of our own statements; but we cannot assume that our opponent will do it, and therefore we cannot do it either

But even when a man has the right on his side, he needs Dialectic in order to defend and maintain it; he must know what the dishonest tricks are, in order to meet them; nay, he must often make use of them himself, so as to beat the enemy with his own weapons…

In itself Dialectic has nothing to do but to show how a man may defend himself against attacks of every kind, and especially against dishonest attacks; and, in the same fashion, how he may attack another man’s statement without contradicting himself, or generally without being defeated

The only certain rule is the one that Aristotle already gave: do not dispute with anyone and everyone, but only with those people you know who are intelligent enough to avoid saying things that are so stupid as to expose themselves to humiliation, who appreciate the truth, and who gladly listen to good reasons, even when the opponent claims them, and who are balanced enough to bear a defeat when the truth is on the other side

Machiavelli recommends his Prince to make use of every moment that his neighbour is weak, in order to attack him; as otherwise his neighbour may do the same. If honour and fidelity prevailed in the world, it would be a different matter; but as these are qualities not to be expected, a man must not practise them himself, because he will meet with a bad return. It is just the same in a dispute: if I allow that my opponent is right as soon as he seems to be so, it is scarcely probable that he will do the same when the position is reversed; and as he acts wrongly, I am compelled to act wrongly too. It is easy to say that we must yield to truth, without any prepossession in favour of our own statements; but we cannot assume that our opponent will do it, and therefore we cannot do it either

Conclusion

Reading this book feels a bit like lifting the curtain on a stage play you’ve seen your whole life.

Suddenly, you notice the tricks, the cues, the ways people shift a conversation to their advantage.

Schopenhauer might not make you a better person—but he will make you a smarter one.

If you want to navigate arguments with clarity, protect yourself from manipulation, and maybe even win a few more discussions with your dignity intact, this little book is a powerful place to start.

I am incredibly grateful that you have taken the time to read this post.

Support my work by sharing my content with your network using the sharing buttons below.

Want to show your support and appreciation tangibly?

Creating these posts takes time, effort, and lots of coffee—but it’s totally worth it!

If you’d like to show some support and help keep me stay energized for the next one, buying me a virtual coffee is a simple (and friendly!) way to do it.

Do you want to get new content in your Email?

Do you want to explore more?

Check my main categories of content below:

• Book Notes
• Career Development
• Essays
• Explaining
• Leadership
• Lean and Agile
• Management
• Personal Development
• Project Management
• Reading Insights
• Technology

Navigate between the many topics covered in this website:

Agile Art Artificial Intelligence Blockchain Books Business Business Tales C-Suite Career Coaching Communication Creativity Culture Cybersecurity Decision Making Design DevOps Digital Transformation Economy Emotional Intelligence ESG Feedback Finance Flow Focus Gaming Generative AI Goals GPT Habits Harvard Health History Innovation Kanban Large Language Models Leadership Lean Learning LeSS Machine Learning Magazine Management Marketing McKinsey Mentorship Metaverse Metrics Mindset Minimalism MIT Motivation Negotiation Networking Neuroscience NFT Ownership Paper Parenting Planning PMBOK PMI PMO Politics Portfolio Management Productivity Products Program Management Project Management Readings Remote Work Risk Management Routines Scrum Self-Improvement Self-Management Sleep Social Media Startups Strategy Team Building Technology Time Management Volunteering Web3 Work

Do you want to check previous Book Notes? Check these from the last couple of weeks:

• Book Notes #126: Inevitable by Mike Colias2025-03-24
• Book Notes #125: Revenge of the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell2025-03-21
• Book Notes #124: Radical Candor by Kim Scott2024-09-04
• Book Notes #123: The Personal MBA by Josh Kaufman2024-05-09
• Book Notes #122: The First 20 Hours by Josh Kaufman2024-05-02

Support my work by sharing my content with your network using the sharing buttons below.

Want to show your support tangibly? A virtual coffee is a small but nice way to show your appreciation and give me the extra energy to keep crafting valuable content! Pay me a coffee: