How to win any argument
Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:43 pm
(re-post from another forum)
How to win any argument.
Simply follow these 5 easy steps, and you too, can be like James and win at life: (this part i edited)
1. Drink liquor.
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about.
If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date.
But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
2. Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
3. Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
"Let me put it this way.."
"In terms of..."
"Vis-a-vis..."
"Per se..."
"As it were..."
"Qua..."
"So to speak..."
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as: "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
4. Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
"You're begging the question."
"You're being defensive."
"Don't compare apples to oranges."
"What are your parameters?"
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means. and don't forget the classic: YOU'RE SO LINEAR.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.
You say: You're begging the question.
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.
You say: You're being defensive.
5. Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
Regards.
(Oz)...
How to win any argument.
Simply follow these 5 easy steps, and you too, can be like James and win at life: (this part i edited)
1. Drink liquor.
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about.
If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date.
But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
2. Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
3. Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
"Let me put it this way.."
"In terms of..."
"Vis-a-vis..."
"Per se..."
"As it were..."
"Qua..."
"So to speak..."
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as: "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
4. Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
"You're begging the question."
"You're being defensive."
"Don't compare apples to oranges."
"What are your parameters?"
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means. and don't forget the classic: YOU'RE SO LINEAR.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.
You say: You're begging the question.
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.
You say: You're being defensive.
5. Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
Regards.
(Oz)...
Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:57 pm
lol, as if anyone would know when Abroham Lincoln died... xD
*well, loads of people might, but I am not American, so I didn't have a clue* :p
*well, loads of people might, but I am not American, so I didn't have a clue* :p
Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:17 am
Nope, I prefere the defunct logic failure system.
Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:40 am
You don't know how many times I've witnessed someone claiming that another person was "begging the question" like they know what it meant only to notice that tthe person wasn't and that they had no idea what it meant. x)
Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:12 am
Saved for future references 
Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:21 am
Don't try #1 or #5 if you don't want the world to hate you.
Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:43 am
In a world of Induhviduals, the poor "elitist" expert of a subject is hated for going against what we "know" in our Gut. The debator "of the people" is the expert on debating strategy and doesn't need to know much, if anything, about the subject he's debating. He just has to keep the opponent from getting the upper hand by continually pummeling him with questions and demanding that every question be answered correctly lest he lose by default, and jabbing the opponent with half sarcastic remarks to play to the crowd. Besides, the average audience member of a public forum (I'm not talking about online, though it often applies there as well) is more interested in hearing his spin on the facts or someone's style rather than the facts themselves and substance.
It's much easier and takes less effort and time to make absurd claims and back them up with a mountain of fallacies and out-right lies than it is to tear them apart.
"The dilemma in Jonathan Chait's analysis is that it needs analysis at all. It took columnist Max Boot one line to say that Democrats had flip-flopped on the war. Chait needed his entire column to explain that it is not flip-flopping when the information surrounding the war had changed.
The current rules of debate have taken on the attention-span limitations of a cocktail party. A simple rule of thumb is that you must get in your response in less time than it would take for Sean Hannity to interrupt you.
The fact is, if people truly wanted a real understanding of a matter, talk radio would be out of business. People no longer want information as much as they want to be on the winning side, for feeling right is more important than being right.
Many people think the more simple the argument, even if the issue isn't, the more easy it is to win the debate -- a debate that is no debate at all."
-- Steve Young, letter to the Los Angeles Times newspaper, Tuesday, December 6, 2005, Re "Logic isn't flip-flopping," Opinion, Dec. 4
Often people use Latin or confusing terminology to confuse an opponent or sound smart. Sometimes they use it honestly and with no ill intentions, but that's seemingly much less often the case.
It's much easier and takes less effort and time to make absurd claims and back them up with a mountain of fallacies and out-right lies than it is to tear them apart.
"The dilemma in Jonathan Chait's analysis is that it needs analysis at all. It took columnist Max Boot one line to say that Democrats had flip-flopped on the war. Chait needed his entire column to explain that it is not flip-flopping when the information surrounding the war had changed.
The current rules of debate have taken on the attention-span limitations of a cocktail party. A simple rule of thumb is that you must get in your response in less time than it would take for Sean Hannity to interrupt you.
The fact is, if people truly wanted a real understanding of a matter, talk radio would be out of business. People no longer want information as much as they want to be on the winning side, for feeling right is more important than being right.
Many people think the more simple the argument, even if the issue isn't, the more easy it is to win the debate -- a debate that is no debate at all."
-- Steve Young, letter to the Los Angeles Times newspaper, Tuesday, December 6, 2005, Re "Logic isn't flip-flopping," Opinion, Dec. 4
Often people use Latin or confusing terminology to confuse an opponent or sound smart. Sometimes they use it honestly and with no ill intentions, but that's seemingly much less often the case.
Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:50 am
Yukio... I think you had the same lit. teacher. That sounds exactly like something he told us... a lot.
Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:31 am
Whether it's the fact it happens to be 12:31 AM, and needless to say I am growing tired, I found this absolutely and utterly amusing to a huge extent. I can't recall how many times a particular person I know has uttered the phrase "You're being defensive".
Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:31 am
lol it's great innae.. for a laugh anyway 
Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:46 am
I want to do that 
Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:58 pm
That's hilarious!
Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:12 pm
Don't do #5 if they're Jewish.
Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:42 pm
There is no way I'd be comparable to Adolf Hitler. 
Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:39 pm
The Nazi reference is the sure-fire way to rid someone of credibility, or so it was until it was horribly overused. There's also the communist, or godless, reference. That works especially well in America.