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 ****ed 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 weightly-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 opponent says: ``Lincoln died in 1865.'' You say: ``You're begging the question.'' OR You say: ``Liberians, like most Asians...'' Your opponent says: ``Liberia is in Africa.'' You say: ``You're being defensive.''
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.''
So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull this on people who generally carry weapons.
lol. however you should note this stuff only works against imposters (like the architect from the matrix reloaded). a real intellectual will instantly denounce you as a sophist and ignore you henceforth having relegated you to the realms of ignorant tossers and the great unwashed.
p.s. the Hitler device is surprisingly effective, but you're in trouble if somebody mentions Godwin's Law. your only hope then is to insinuate that either they source all their information from Wikipedia, or from an obviously biased forum, seeing as they obviously spend 'too much time' on the internet.
That's what happens when you drink? Guess I'm a dry drunk.
While humorous, this actually makes some legitimate points. God knows reason has never convinced anyone of anything.
p.s. the Hitler device is surprisingly effective, but you're in trouble if somebody mentions Godwin's Law.
How about "You're being defensive"?
Recently, the rhetorical device I have fallen in love with is "You're just mad because[...]". I cannot express with words how fond I am of this technique. It implies not only an ad hominem, but also that you will completely ignore every point made, instead spending time and energy talking down to someone as though you're the rational one. Ad hominem. Irrelevant. Condescending. It's so beautiful.
"I've just demonstrated that you use fallacious argumentative techniques," trumps everything proferred once Godwin's law has been broached.
Corollary: when in trouble, use "fallacious" in your retort. Unless your collocutor is of Moegreche-like intellect, you will at least stall for time while they get confused over whether they did, in fact, commit a fallacy or not.
I 100% agree with latin. to bad, if ur arguing with someone with THAT intelect, im guessing that theve taken latin... and ya. i have no idea what a parameter is. :P
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.''
While funny, this isn't PepeSilvia's work. Just copy and paste the first paragraph into Google and the first four hits are all this exact story on multiple non-forum based websites. This is hilarious, but technically plagarism because he didn't cite sources.
The Prime Minister of Australia was likened to that of Colonel Gadafi by members of the opposition, and I laughed at the opposition. That sorta makes the Hitler argument seem weak and dumb.
