Discussions on various topics come up anywhere there is people with certain thoughts. These discussions will come up from out of nowhere and from anywhere. When a discussion becomes a heated debate as two parties utter back and forth then it is an argument. Winning those arguments, whether you know or do not know what you are talking about, is a great feeling. Here is how to win arguments, when you have no clue of what the argument entails, by making things up, using meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases, and by using snappy comebacks.
Making things up is harder than it seems. Made up phrases just cant be off the top of your head, they have to be thought out. Suppose, in a 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 are damned if you are 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.” This second statement suggests the same thought, yet expresses it in a way that sounds more sophisticated and in turn the arguer looks better.
Next, use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases. To do this, a list needs to be entered into memory. Stylish words and phrases include: let me put it this way, in terms of, vis-?-vis, per se, as it were, qua, and so to speak. Memorize 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.” Nobody wins arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: “Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-?-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.
Finally, use snappy and irrelevant comebacks. Having an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at opponents when they make valid points is great for a final blow. The best are: you’re begging the question, you’re being defensive, don’t compare apples and oranges, and what are your parameters. This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the clearest idea what “parameters” means.
When all else fails, compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler. This is the heavy artillery, for when an opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: “That sounds suspiciously like something Hitler might say” or “You certainly do remind me of Hitler.” Most people refer to Hitler as an evil person. Implying that an opponent is making a statement that Hitler would say, shows that you will give no mercy as you fail miserably.
So that’s it. You now know how to out-argue anybody. One thing to remember in using this trade is to do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons. In now knowing the three basic steps to winning any argument, there are endless uses of this vat of information provided. Some potential areas are court; speeding tickets; and on Hollywood Squares as a square celebrity. All three areas of arguing can and will be improved, as to be more believing, if ones vocabulary is particularly lofty. That is, to discern words like puerile, eschew, egalitarian, and reticence will make opponents quiver in their boots. Remember that to confuse the opponent and make it look like you know what you are talking about is the key to success in any argument. Just make the rival believe what you are sputtering even when you do not believe it yourself.