I want to create a game based on Athenian democracy called Polis. I want the focus of the game to be on the debates and subsequent vote. I was thinking a Rock Paper Scissors system using debate tactics but they seem too diverse for easy catorigization and too many to treat seperately.
Some of the tactics are Changing the Subject, Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, Shift Burden of Proof, Jargon, Strawman, Confusing Correlation with Cause, Slippery Slope, Point out Inconsistancy, High Retoric, Slogan, Question Opponent's Motives, Cite Irrelevant Facts, Establish a Premise, Popularity Contest, Scapegoating, Taking it Out of Context, and so on. I don't know how to get these debate tactics to work together, can someone give me a hint or point me in the direction of a game with a debate tactic that you think would be helpful.
Polis
This post from The Art of Manliness might have some useful resources for you, if you want to look into how the ancients approached rhetoric. http://artofmanliness.com/2010/11/30/history-of-rhetoric/
Also, you could look into Aristotle's Rhetoric, though it is a quite a read. http://www2.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/
Here's a first try at orginization.
Pathos: Arousing Envy, Flowery Language, Threats or Predictions of Doom, Slogan, Appeal to the Majority, Appeal to Tradition, Scapegoating, Appeal to Authority
Logos: Confusing Correlation and Cause, Generilization, Slippery Slope, Vague Language, Circular Argument, Establish Facts, Begging the Question, Expose Hypocrisy, Taking it out of Context, Fallacy of Composition
Ethos: Cult of Personality, Question Opponent's Motives, Ad Hominem, Popularity Contest, Expert Reputation, Claiming Association with Audience
Thanks a lot, I don't think I'll have time to read all of Aristotle's Rhetoric but just the summery of the second chapter was helpful. It gives three clear sections, ethos, pathos and logos. This is fantastic for my original RPS idea, I don't know what will beat what though. I think Pathos beats Logos, Logos beats Ethos and Ethos beats Pathos. So Emotion beats logic, logic beats charisma and charisma beats emotion. I was also thinking of introducing some sort of order to play, having to start with a premise, move on to the argument and finish with a conclusion. I was thinking that part of the point of the RPS system was to try to disrupt the other person's train of argument and make them have to rush to reestablish their point. How arguments would translate to votes would be based on how long your train of argument was and the "value" of each card with cards that are more grandiose and easier to refute being worth more. I'll see if I can sort my previous values into these catogories.