how to argue academically

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, 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 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 Adolph Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolph Hitler."

So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody

[Pyr0 MK III]

tl;dr

[MrL_JaKiri]

Petition to rename Pyr0 to 'Acronym Boy'

[Crackmonkey]

And you couldn't possibly think that people see you as a drunken idiot.

[endokuken]

I'm Hitler

Originally posted by endokuken
I'm Hitler

no your not, your the red devil stalin

[Nodrog]

in before jonnybgood

that document is nonobjective in terms of que the 1986 cambridge grammatical general meeting, vis a vis your being defensive hitler.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by hilltop hoods
that document is nonobjective in terms of que the 1986 cambridge grammatical general meeting, vis a vis your being defensive hitler.

this is a classic example of the strawman fallacy

your making things up gordon

[endokuken]

Originally posted by hilltop hoods
no your not, your the red devil stalin

shut up and answer my PM

[JammyJim]

This is the best article i have read since the 1962 'Great Arguement Exposé' written by Dr. John Montague for the Oxford University Press.

[acropolis]

dave barry is like god + funny

[Dace]

'Strawman' is nods answer to everything :rolleyes:

[Pyr0 MK III]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Petition to rename Pyr0 to 'Acronym Boy'

ygmv

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Pyr0 MK III
ygmv

I'm not a green movie villain!

[Marilyn Manson]

Arguing. Heh.

[plasmas_arms]

Walk over to the first person who disagreed with you, shoot them in the face (Bullets etc) then walk over to the second person who disagreed ask if they still disagree.

Work your way down the list until people start agreeing.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by hilltop hoods
* 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 Adolph Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolph Hitler."

So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody

Not the most subtle use of Godwins Law but effective.

[Sarina_Joy]

Originally posted by plasmas_arms
Walk over to the first person who disagreed with you, shoot them in the face (Bullets etc) then walk over to the second person who disagreed ask if they still disagree.

Work your way down the list until people start agreeing.

Or just shoot everyone and be done.