#2. PROOF BY VERBOSITY (aka "PROOF BY INTIMIDATION) is an argument that is so convoluted, jargon-laden and unintelligible, that the listener is simply forced to accept it, or admit their ignorance and the fact they can’t follow it and don’t understand it. This style of argumentation is often used by experts, or at least wannabe experts with a good vocabulary (Elders, Overseeers, etc.) It’s purposely making the argument difficult to understand in an effort to intimidate people into accepting it, and no one can argue with you because they don’t understand your comment or what you’re really saying. It can't be understood and it sounds smart due to all of the big words and Bible verses used, and this person seems, or at least sounds like an expert and they seem so confident about it all, so it must be right… right?
EXAMPLE. The WT use of Proof by Verbosity can be seen in my blog AN ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT SUPPORTS GOD’S NAME a 4’51” video at JW.ORG which is here.
EXAMPLE. The WT use of Proof by Verbosity can be seen in my blog AN ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT SUPPORTS GOD’S NAME a 4’51” video at JW.ORG which is here.
The Gatling Gun is about the quantity, not the quality of arguments. It's about over whelming people with as many false hoods and fallacies in the limited time available.
Many Gatling Gun arguments attack straw men and refute points no one made, and are often full of PRATT's (Point Refuted a Thousand Times) but that doesn't stop intellectually dishonest JW's from presenting them as if they were sound and valid arguments.
Example. I critiqued the WT booklet, What Does the Bible Really Teach. It is often used as the first book to be studied when a homeowner agrees to a WT "Bible Study." Here is the first of the 25 blogs I took to cover the entire booklet and chapter after chapter is a good example of the Gatling Gun method of arguing.
#4. HOARE’S DICTUM. This dictum is named after a computer scientist, C.A.R. Hoare, who said, “There are two methods in software design. One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are NO OBVIOUS ERRORS.” This applies to logical arguments as well. You can make the argument so simple that there are obviously no errors. Or you can make it so complicated that there are NO OBVIOUS ERRORS.”
#6. DOUBLESPEAK is ambiguous language used to deceive and mislead you. It is the exact opposite of plain speaking.
And finally, the article titled, Working Hard for the Reward of Eternal Life, tells the JW's they are working hard for Eternal Life, however, the Bible teaches that Eternal Life is a free gift from God. See Ephesians 2:8-10, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no on can boast. For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." I also blogged about this topic here.
Lastly, if I am showing a JW a page from a WT publication, even a WT Bible, the JW will say, "Apostates have photo shopped that publication, then changed the content to put the WT in bad light" OR they will say I am an Apostate (which I am not) and then refuse to talk further.
#9. RE-DEFINING WORDS.
In order to thoroughly confuse non-JW's and give their members the feeling that they are "Christians", the WT has redefined Biblical words to mean something totally different from their historical, Christian definition.
By redefining words the JW can seemingly agree with a Christian but in reality not agree. Where there is a definite doctrinal difference, by redefining words, no difference can be detected. This is why many nominal Christians and JW's themselves can declare, "JW's are Christian," or "JW's are Born Again" or "JW's believe Jesus is God." I have blogged about this topic here.
#10. CHANGING THE SUBJECT. In a debate, When a person is losing an argument he/she tries to redirect the attention of their opponent to another subject area (for a JW this would be to another Bible verse) where he/she thinks they can look better relative to the person they are debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent. JW's often preface their Changing the Subject with, "What about." By Changing the Subject the JW does not have to acknowledge that they have lost the argument on the original topic.
The definitive article on Linguistic Tricks is here at Life Lessons. A word of caution. The Life Lessons article contains coarse, crude, inappropriate language.