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.
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.
Very true. In the interests of fairness, though, I'm willing to keep this one open so long as this becomes a more legitimate discussion. (mainly because this has been around the internet, verbatim, for a very, very long time)
Please make sure that you cite sources, ESPECIALLY in the AMW and WEPR, from now on Pepe, and everyone else as well. (even if it's just a "hey I saw this on "insertwebpagehere" the other day and thought it was hilarious)
if ur arguing with someone with THAT intelect, im guessing that theve taken latin
In the (genuinely) intellectual circles, there's a distinction to be made here. If you use Latin in your phrases (e.g. ad hominem, ad nauseam, ceteris paribus, prima facie, quod erat demonstrata, et cetera), you need to know exactly what they mean. Also you need to know which phrases are not Latin (once again the Architect from the Matrix used quite a lot of irrelevant French in his wankalogue)...
And then you need to realise that the only people who actually use those phrases on a regular basis are lawyers (I know of none here) and post-graduate level analytical philsophers (like Moegreche). Alternatively, familiarising yourself with articles on major topics like "argumentative fallacies" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will place you in pretty good stead :P
Isn't the expression "quod erat demonstrandum"? I have never seen in any of my math books quod erat demonstrata.
And then you need to realise that the only people who actually use those phrases on a regular basis are lawyers (I know of none here) and post-graduate level analytical philsophers (like Moegreche).
Mathematicians and economist also often use Latin.
Some Latin words and expressions are quite mainstream, e.g. () status quo, bonus, corpus, alter, homo, etcetera, per se, de facto and pro bono.
Anyway, Latin is present in a manifold of different scientific and academic fields, I believe that almost every University student/graduate knows several Latin words/expressions. As long as you keep it simple you have good chances of being understood.
Some corrections: Considering this is not actually made by the OP, or contains otherwise self made stuff, this is being moved to the Tavern (unless the people debating wants it in the WEPR).
If you do wish to post stuff in the Art section that does not belong to you, don't do it. If you otherwise wish to post stuff that does not belong to you, cite your sources. This includes, but is not limited to: Lolcat images, random illustrative images, lists you find funny, "original" jokes and song lyrics.
Thanks.
/ I also think you forgot the rule on leaving: If your opponent does not reply, you won. If your opponent replies late, it is not because they had to go something in real life, or forgot, but because they are so taken aback by your argument, that you have basically won. If the opponent does not understand your argument, you have also won.
Isn't the expression "quod erat demonstrandum"? I have never seen in any of my math books quod erat demonstrata.
Uh. Yeah. That's the one. As you can see, I no longer use QED. In fact I don't even use Latin in any of my arguments anymore. I'm, like... too legit and all that lol.
Mathematicians and economist also often use Latin.
But not in arguments over the internet, or at dinner parties. Wait, maybe I should correct myself. It's probably not unusual for mathematicians to argue about a proof at a dinner party >_>
