I have met a lot of argumentative people at parties, and through careful Discovery Channel-type observation it has become clear to me how to win arguments. I have compiled a set of rules, which if you abide by, will allow you to emerge victorious in any argument.
The arguments that people generally have trouble winning are those they have no idea what is being discussed.
In my observations, one common strategy for dominating an argument is through consuming the argument-enhancing liquid: alcohol.
I have witnessed it first hand. At a party some “intellectual” is spouting of his senior thesis on historical Mediterranean socio-economic policy. I find that many potential arguers hold back sipping on their Sprite, but get a few martinis in them and suddenly they are scholars on the subject. Warning: this argument is often won in the midst of upturned furniture and possibly a broken lamp. Some people may be impressed. Often, and more likely, they will go and hang out by the chip bowl.
My next suggested strategy: make stuff up.
If the argument turns south and valid points are being made by the other side on the historical Mediterranean socio-economic policy, turn to your secret weapon: fantastical exact figures. Suppose you are trying to argue that working conditions in Mediterranean nations are grueling and compensation is to low.
What not to say: “They work a lot for notta lotta scrilla.”
What you should say: “The average per capita Mediterranean worker’s salary adjusted according to CPI figurers using the 1981 base year mark on an annual compounding basis adjusting for inflation is $1762.20 per annum, clearly below benchmark poverty levels.”
Note: make sure to include the word clearly as to discourage others from attacking back because they will feel stupid for not understanding.
Warning: there inevitably will be the “call you out” guy. In this case, remain calm. A simple solution is to continue to make things up. For example: if “that” guy questions your data and asks what your source is calmly respond with “Obviously from the Harvard economic review quarterly in which Dr. Farnard asserts an inverse ration of debt to equity in financing growth projects in underdeveloped nations. Then add: “Didn’t you read it?” Then proceed to stare him down.
Strategy number three: memorize clearly empty phrases with intellectual undertones. Phrases such as: “let me put in terms you can understand,” or “Therefore,” or “As a result of,” or “Vis-avis,” or “So to speak,” or “Per se” or “Duh.”
Latin abbreviations are always golden as well, things such as “e.g.” and “i.e.” and “quid pro quo.” Adding Latin to an argument is the equivalent of a verbal slam-dunk.
Not winning an argument: “Mediterranean workers want to eat more, but are to poor.”
Winning argument: “Therefore, as it seems to me, Mediterranean workers, i.e. in terms of food, will vis-Ã -vis need to work more to obtain more food per se, duh.”
Kids will be taking down the LeBron slam-dunk posters and putting up a poster of that argument. Game over.
Side note: incorporating something involving “parameters” to anyone other than a math major is also a home run. “What are your parameters?”
There you have it, three tools that will carry you to victory in any argument. Nobody will ever challenge you.
Disclaimer: people with weapons may defeat these strategies.
– John Coleman
Associate News Editor
