(Stolen shamelessly from Dave Barry.)
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules.
Drink liquor.
Suppose you're 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.
Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "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 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 bath house."
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 do not."
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.
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 and oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say, "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873..."
Your opponents says, "Lincoln died in 1865."
You say "You're begging the question."
OR
You say, "Liberians, like most Asians..."
Your opponents says, "Liberia is in Africa."
You say, "You're being defensive."
So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who carry weapons.
4 comments:
I hear pen scratching. Conservatives everywhere are writing this down so that they can finally 'win' against us lefties.
For shame CC.
gotta love you, cc.
now have those 3 martini's and rewrite it. please.
i need another good belly laugh...
Hey CC,
I came across this page a while ago and found it amusing and instructive.
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
My curiosity led me to check their home page which set off some alarm bells.
The Fundamentalist movement in the States has, for over a decade, been surreptitiously attaining positions of power under such fictions as 'concerned citizens'.
Once a majority of these co-conspirators are reached they then exercise their agenda.
Starting with local school boards and then feeding on these successes of stacking and whacking, they have wormed their way up the ladder.
The most powerful tool of deception they have is language, which brought me back to the link above.
Here are the lessons for their kin to deflect or obfusicate any debate attempting to exposing their real motives.
You can see the same thing spilling over into Canada vis a vis the correlation between IQ and church attendence in studies by Dr. Mark Miwurds, director of the Helen Hanbasquet Institute.
The CPC seem to be using the same misleading tricks, ie; the Defence of Religion Act.
Someone should be out there educating the masses that facts aren't enough to counter these prevaricating bastards.
A mission, I see, you have decided to undertake.
Let me warn you though, if you are caught, I will deny ever have commented on this subject.
This post will self destruct in 10 seconds.
Quick, back to the main page.
-Mes Amis
This is funny. What's sad is that I've argued with people who live by these rules. They don't make a lick of sense, and when all is said and done, they are still convinced they are always right.
Post a Comment