How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic

This book is more than just an exceptionally wonderful collection of logical fallacies. I enjoyed the fresh examples, and I must confess that a few of them have found their way into my lectures. While our school library has this book in its collection because it provides additional informal logic practice, and allows students to research deeper into our introduction to Critical Thinking, the book has been used by my debate team too.

The language is sufficient for bright High School students, and I would heartily recommend it for anyone teaching critical thinking in High Schools, and I believe that it should be mandatory for any school in Ontario, Canada with a Philosophy curriculum.

Lastly, just like any toobox, there might be tools for which you don't immediately find a use. I do not accept the negative reviews of this book, and in this light, many of their comments become null and void.

A dusty alphabetized list of rhetorical devices. Might be nice if you are taking a course in rhetoric, but other than that, bring your No-Doz.

This book works like a dictionary. It's pretty useful for studying for the LSAT, as I'm currently doing. Some of the entries are common sense but the majority are written with elegant humour. It's more pleasurable to skip from argument to argument than reading it straight through from front to back as you'll probably need to go back to specific ones and work out their intricacies. I enjoy Madsen's writing quite a bit. Also helps that I have a Scottish inclination over English. His examples and tone are down to earth and no BS - which is rare. It's also pleasurable to see him use one fallacy as an example for explaining another fallacy for he shows you how to use a fallacy accurately and well.

Although the author thoroughly covers use & abuse of logic to fit one's agenda, he does not pass up the opportunity to once-in-a-while bash conservatives and religious groups by claiming that certain falacies are used by these groups that he apparently has a bias against.

If you're going to specifically attribute some falacy use to conservatives or religious groups, you ought to also link other falsehoods to the liberal left, and athiest groups.

This way, at least his presentation would be balanced.

Maybe it's the authors style of writing, or that I haven't been to college, when I was reading the book, I thought I was reading a long introduction until 20 pages later I checked and realized I was already reading the book, it seemed to have no begining and no end, I went back to the begining to see if there was a guide to reading the book, but there was non, the only indication you get as a new topic is the bold prints. The author tries to explain fallacies in a very text book way and then when he gives an example you don't even know its an example, then he puts what I guess is jokes in parentasis but your not even sure what it is just more confusion. I have read Nonsense by Robert J. Gula this is a book that puts it plain and simple I understand what a strawman, red herrings is from this book but when I read from "how to win an argument" i just can't comprehend the meaning, the logic, the examples, nor how to abuse of the logic.