Persuasive Argumentation

"You and those dogs make a very compelling point."

A persuasive argument is one where the speaker has a goal in mind for something that he wants to convince his intended audience of. The intended audience may be the person being spoken to, or in the case of a debate may be one or more people observing the discussion. Classically speaking there are three branches of discourse (Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric), but in modern era basic grammar is assumed and one's argumentation is made from some combination of Logic and Rhetoric. It is common in modern discourse to pretend that one's arguments are founded entirely in "Logic" but this is horse shit - literally nothing more than a Rhetorical technique. People on the internet who don't have a great argument themselves will often spout off about how this or that is a "fallacy," but all that means is that they have found (or claimed to have found) a part of an argument that is Rhetorical rather than Logical - or even just that it uses Inductive Logic rather than Deductive Logic. And even if that's true, it doesn't actually say anything one way or the other about whether the argument in question is good or if its conclusions are solid.

Regardless of the method used to argue a subject, the difficulty of convincing an audience depends entirely on how much the audience wants to believe what is being said. Many holy men and talk-show hosts are actually rather incompetent public speakers, but they don't know that because their usual audience is so predisposed to believe whatever they say that they frequently don't need to say anything to get applause and agreement. It is also entirely possible for different members of the audience to have different predispositions, meaning that the same argument can persuade some onlookers and not others.

When two or more people make an argument that successfully persuades audience members of different - even contradictory - positions, audience members are persuaded in both directions. People are entirely capable, even seemingly eager, to believe completely incompatible things simultaneously. What individual audience members will end up doing in such a case will vary depending on their personality and goals. Some will flip a coin, be paralyzed by indecision, or go do their own research. But if one of the presentations got more net hits, that position has a noticeable advantage.

Arguments From Reason

"Given what we know about mass acceleration, your figures seem... unlikely."

A deductively logical argument is one in which the premises are logically equivalent to the conclusions. Deductive logic is helpful only in showing the implications of ideas. Inductive logic can tell us more about the world, but it carries with it the possibility for error - black swans bite as hard as geese. While it is technically correct to label arguments of inductive logic as "fallacies", most people don't distinguish between "True" and "Almost Certainly True". I mean, seriously, you can't deductively prove that you aren't in The Matrix right now, but how many people take Solipsism seriously enough to allow themselves to be beaten with a chair?

Argumentation from Reason requires a set of common ground at some point. For people who are coming to the table with radically different precepts, a Reasoned Argument must be scaled back several layers until commonalties in acknowledged premises can be found. This can be quite a shock to characters dealing with radically different cultures and creatures. Imagine an Imam attempting to make a Reasoned Argument to a Buddhist who won't concede that Allah even exists. Now take it a step farther and imagine an environmentalist trying to make a Reasoned Argument to a Makhzen Vampire who does not even breathe air and cannot be poisoned. Game mechanically, if a test uses a Background skill, the test is wholly ineffective as a Reasoned Argument on any audience member who does not have that Background themselves. An argument of this sort may still be appreciated as theater, and at the MC's discretion may also be rolled as a Rhetorical Appeal for the laymen in the audience. An argument from Reason is called a Contention.

Contention of Details

"...which is naturally why in early March of 1649 there were already calls by Winstanley to repeal the property restriction on voting for parliamentarians..."

A Contention of Details is essentially an attempt to establish one's own credibility as an authority on the subject of dispute. The character presents a large and intricately linked body of facts in or related to the relevant subject that are demonstrably or apparently true. By listing off a large number of facts, the character presents themselves as a reliable source of information on the subject, such that their declaration of their disputed point becomes reliable by association. This is a form of Inductive Logic with the format "Everything I have said about sewer maintenance in general is consistent with me knowing what I am talking about with regards to sewer maintenance. Therefore what I say regarding the maintenance of this particular sewer is likely to be correct." This is essentially the same format as the argument that the sun will rise tomorrow, so properly constructed it can be pretty persuasive.

Dicepools of these kinds of Contentions are usually Logic + Research. The character must have a relevant Background skill to attempt such a Contention. A Contention of Details takes a significant amount of time to get to the point, and is confronted with increases in threshold to convince audience members who are in a hurry. Also, the entire strategy is weak to attacks on the person's character. An opposing debater gains bonus dice if they choose to go the low road.

Contention of Disagreement

"That's preposterous! Everyone knows sea turtles sink when tampered with."

A Contention of Disagreement is an attempt to steal the spotlight from another speaker or an assumed paradigm of thought in the audience by finding fault with premises or connections made between premises to invalidate the conclusions. While technically this only deductively proves that the original argument being attacked is invalid, it inductively suggests that it is also wrong. And more tenuously (but still persuasively) suggests that the character's ideas are better.

Dicepools of these kinds of Contentions are usually Intuition + Background. The Contention of Disagreement literally requires an opposing argument to disagree with. In the absence of real or known opposition, the character can construct an opposing argument (called a "straw man") - but this is regarded as dirty pool in many circles and may make skeptical observers hostile. It is also weak if the original argument was crafted especially well, following up a strong oration may well leave the character with a dicepool penalty.

Contention of Reference

"The market exists when information exists for producer and consumer, and both producer and consumer can choose to buy or sell a given product at a given price. And when no such choice exists?"

A Contention of Reference is one of the few lines of argumentation that are not technically fallacious. Unfortunately, the internet being what it is, people will accuse you of fallacy anyway. It's not a whole lot different in the forums of the Covenant. Such is life. And unlife. The idea is that you take a set of premises that the audience believes that they agree with, and then you extract implications from them with a seemingly acceptable argument. Ideally, the implication is one that the audience hasn't thought of or disagrees with. But hey, sometimes it's for whatever reason important or useful to convince people that something they think is true is true. Referential Contentions are good for that.

Dicepools of these kinds of Contentions are usually Logic + Background. A Contention of Reference is very weak if the audience has wildly different acceptable premises from the speaking character, and may well be saddled with increases in threshold.

Contention of Validity

"That's a good question. The short answer is yes, but that brings me to my next point..."

A Contention of Validity is an attempt to demonstrate the character's mastery of the subject and reliability as a source by responding quickly, effectively, and verifiably truthfully; thereby inductively giving support to their other ideas. Fallacy hunters will note that this frequently counts as a "non sequitur" in that a correct response to one question does not necessarily imply a correct statement next time. But seriously, it works pretty well. Some speakers like to spike the audience with shills to throw out softball questions, and others don't.

Dicepools of these kinds of Contentions are usually Charisma + Background. A Contention of Validity is incredibly weak in the absence of viewer participation. While the character could write themselves a dialogue where they were asked questions by an imaginary audience, the persuasive effect is much dimmed, provoking all but the most devoted into skepticism. Having people ask tougher questions is a double edged sword. If the character can field them (which may, at the MC's discretion require an Intuition + Background test), a small bonus may be in order. If the character fails to field them, their Contention pretty much falls apart right there. If audience members notice shills offering softball questions, dicepool penalties or threshold increases should be awarded.