That troll in your comment section that you’re arguing with is not dumb. 

They just don’t know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

This one concept will change how you think, argue and win debates.

Inductive logic is when you go from specific examples to a general conclusion.

Example: “Several homes in my area are declining in value. Therefore, the housing market must be crashing and all home prices are declining!”

Sounds reasonable, but it’s not guaranteed. 

You only need one home not declining in value to ruin that conclusion.

Deductive logic works the other way—it starts with a general rule and applies it to specifics.

Example: “All apples are fruits. A Granny Smith is an apple. Therefore, a Granny Smith is a fruit.”

If the rule is true, the conclusion is airtight.

When you’re trying to win an argument, use deductive logic. 

Make it crystal clear.

Use this framework:

1. Major premise,
2. Minor premise, 
3. Conclusion that follows logically 

Example: “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”

This argument structure is called a syllogism and is powerful. 

It’s hard to argue with unless you successfully attack the major or minor premise. 

But assuming both premises are correct, the conclusion has to be correct.

A simpler example:

There was 20 people. Now there are 19. Therefore, 1 person must have left. 

Assuming you counted correctly each time, your conclusion is bulletproof. 

If you structure your arguments like that, you’ll be hard to argue with.

Here’s the real fun: when someone else is making a point, figure out if they’re inferring (inductive) or deducing (deductive).

If it’s inductive, you can poke holes in it. Fast.

Most of the time based on an over-generalization

If it’s deductive, you’re left to test the validity of the major and minor premises. 

Master this, and you’ll think better, argue better, and probably annoy a lot of people in the process.