k. Does this imply that you love me less now as well?"

She will then see the irrationality of her argument.

Let's try another.

Mark says, "The Bush Administration wastes so much time bickering, debating and arguing. Obviously this country is going nowhere. Such a waste of time!"

So you come to the

Does this symphony sound familiar?

You are too!

Am not!!

You are TOO!

AM NOT!

YOU ARE ALSO!!

AM NOT!!

Familiar? It's how kids argue. I'm sure you've tried this mode of arguing decades back.

Children, when pointed out that they are "xxx", tend to retaliate that their accuser is also "xxx" The accuser then balks, because people hate having their arguments thrown back at them. It's human nature.

The Reflexivity Principle applies this known fact. By applying a belief statement back to the person asserting it, we test the applicability of that belief within an equitable context. By equitable context, I mean that what's good for the Gander should also be good for the Goose. This determines the universality of the statement. If, by throwing an argument back to its issuer, we observe a resistance, then this could indicate a presence double standards. This surely makes the argument IRRATIONAL, and NON-UNIVERSAL.

You've successfully countered his argument.

Let's see this in play.

She says, " You're always with your officemates. Obviously you don't like me anymore"

To counter this, you apply her argument back to her by saying, "My dear, you spend at least 3 hours a day with your friends after work. Does this imply that you love me less now as well?"

She will then see the irrationality of her argument.

Let's try another.

Mark says, "The Bush Administration wastes so much time bickering, debating and arguing. Obviously this country is going nowhere. Such a waste of time!"

So you come to the

accuser is also "xxx" The accuser then balks, because people hate having their arguments thrown back at them. It's human nature.

The Reflexivity Principle applies this known fact. By applying a belief statement back to the person asserting it, we test the applicability of that belief within an equitable context. By equitable context, I mean that what's good for the Gander should also be good for the Goose. This determines the universality of the statement. If, by throwing an argument back to its issuer, we observe a resistance, then this could indicate a presence double standards. This surely makes the argument IRRATIONAL, and NON-UNIVERSAL.

You've successfully countered his argument.

Let's see this in play.

She says, " You're always with your officemates. Obviously you don't like me anymore"

To counter this, you apply her argument back to her by saying, "My dear, you spend at least 3 hours a day with your friends after work. Does this imply that you love me less now as well?"

She will then see the irrationality of her argument.

Let's try another.

Mark says, "The Bush Administration wastes so much time bickering, debating and arguing. Obviously this country is going nowhere. Such a waste of time!"

So you come to the

equitable context, I mean that what's good for the Gander should also be good for the Goose. This determines the universality of the statement. If, by throwing an argument back to its issuer, we observe a resistance, then this could indicate a presence double standards. This surely makes the argument IRRATIONAL, and NON-UNIVERSAL.

You've successfully countered his argument.

Let's see this in play.

She says, " You're always with your officemates. Obviously you don't like me anymore"

To counter this, you apply her argument back to her by saying, "My dear, you spend at least 3 hours a day with your friends after work. Does this imply that you love me less now as well?"

She will then see the irrationality of her argument.

Let's try another.

Mark says, "The Bush Administration wastes so much time bickering, debating and arguing. Obviously this country is going nowhere. Such a waste of time!"

So you come to the

UNIVERSAL.

You've successfully countered his argument.

Let's see this in play.

She says, " You're always with your officemates. Obviously you don't like me anymore"

To counter this, you apply her argument back to her by saying, "My dear, you spend at least 3 hours a day with your friends after work. Does this imply that you love me less now as well?"

She will then see the irrationality of her argument.

Let's try another.

Mark says, "The Bush Administration wastes so much time bickering, debating and arguing. Obviously this country is going nowhere. Such a waste of time!"

So you come to the

k. Does this imply that you love me less now as well?"

She will then see the irrationality of her argument.

Let's try another.

Mark says, "The Bush Administration wastes so much time bickering, debating and arguing. Obviously this country is going nowhere. Such a waste of time!"

So you come to the good ole US of A's defense by saying, "I see.... so shall I assume that your business will never prosper either? Your Board spends a lot of time deliberating and debating. I observed that you, as Chairman, even seem to enjoy this and you goad them on! Now despite all that bickering, your company grows 10% per annum. Mark, I'm sure you're already aware of the value of debate. Healthy deliberation illuminates multiple avenues of action. That's what your Board does. That's what the Bush administration accomplishes."

Okay, let's put this to practice. Someone brave, come to the front; volunteer 10 arguments.

Then let's have someone else come up with ten counter arguments using this principle.

Have fun!