Thought this fitting for this forum

[Tgace]

Well, I certainly see your point. After all, it's extraordinarily offensive to write personal comments about other people's social skills and character....hey wait! I forgot!! I don't write stuff like: "You may very well be "right" but are so bereft of social skill that nobody cares."

Incidentally, your definition of, "intellectualism," is inadequate to your purposes. You need to add in something about the, "ivory tower," quality of intellecutal life in America, and its class assumptions...you know, the same critique of, "pure reason," that Marx made? It'll work a lot better for ya.

I certainly agree that it is easier to read through a text and into its writer than it is to deal with its ideas, its bases in fact, and its implications for one's own thinking and basic world-view.

How many different ways can I put it? Ive never had an issue with the factual content of your posts. You are obviously well educated and well read. Its just that the "way you say things is so loud I cant hear a word you say." I know, I know, I have heard your arguement against being civil/polite and I wish I could do the same at my job. It would make things so much more "interesting". But Ya know what? You are right. I suppose that if I find somebody who has intellectually justified being rude offensive (which is different from "judging" you, Im certain many fine people are rude). And find myself becoming rude in return. I should take the high road and ignore him/her. Which is what I am going to do.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Wow, wasn't this thread supposed to be for humor?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Random, You should know by now that leaving these guys to their own devices with no supervision is detrimental to thread health. Robertson just likes to bait people for the sake of argument. And all these guys rise to the bait, so (just to belabor the analogy a bit more...) it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Okay guys. Back on track - please? Hasn't anyone met someone who does this? I went to a college chock full of 'em. They're now all in advertising or banking... talk about a sense of humor.

 

[loki09789]

Random, You should know by now that leaving these guys to their own devices with no supervision is detrimental to thread health. Robertson just likes to bait people for the sake of argument. And all these guys rise to the bait, so (just to belabor the analogy a bit more...) it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Okay guys. Back on track - please? Hasn't anyone met someone who does this? I went to a college chock full of 'em. They're now all in advertising or banking... talk about a sense of humor.

Or they stay in Academia because they can't seem to reconcile "thought" and "action" or learn how to "play well with others"

I always hated 'group project' time in college. Probably the WORST time/group/mentallity to expect cooperative behavior from people.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oooh! Cheap shots at collitch perfessors!! Wow!! I must say, I never heard or thought about that before!!!

Beyond the fact that y'all don't know the half of it, understand why it is in a sense true, or clue into the reasons that the flip side of the ivory tower is the anti-intellectualism you're perfectly illustrating, the fact that you're hilariously wrong in your projections should tell you something.

But I feel sure that it won't. Sorry, got to go. Got a pitcher of lemonade to make with the lemons already cut, a door to scrub so I can paint it Wednesday morning and a car to wash before I drive the 160 miles into the desert and run the Writing Lab this evening till 10.

 

[loki09789]

Oooh! Cheap shots at collitch perfessors!! Wow!! I must say, I never heard or thought about that before!!!

Beyond the fact that y'all don't know the half of it, understand why it is in a sense true, or clue into the reasons that the flip side of the ivory tower is the anti-intellectualism you're perfectly illustrating, the fact that you're hilariously wrong in your projections should tell you something.

But I feel sure that it won't. Sorry, got to go. Got a pitcher of lemonade to make with the lemons already cut, a door to scrub so I can paint it Wednesday morning and a car to wash before I drive the 160 miles into the desert and run the Writing Lab this evening till 10.

Funny, I am aspiring to satisfy my PhD over time and teach college eventually....the "shot" (I call it an observation) was about ANYONE who stays on campus (administrative jobs, academics, technical fields, career students...) motivated by a desire to avoid leaving said campus for the wider world.

I have seen folks stay in the service for the same reasons: Can't reconcile or adjust to the wider world.

 

[Tgace]

Sorry for the "PG'ness" of this one, but I think its a riot.



http://www.vicecentral.com/index.php?p=35

We've all been in arguements before. And we've all been in arguements where we know the other person is wrong, but for some reason... they just won't admit it. And you can't back them into a corner. Then suddenly, people start seeing your opponent's side of things. They start agreeing with him, and as quick as lightning, everyone thinks you're the one who's wrong, and you're the a*****e in this situation. You're left shamed, humbled, and at a loss for what happened. So, how did a person who has the arguing skills of Helen Keller suddenly turn everything around? Chances are, they employed one or more of these tactics that I am about to mention.

These tactics have been gathered from the minds of professionals and experienced arguers. Also known as a******s. Also also known as Me. Now, when attempting to use these tactics, keep in mind that there are two distinct types of arguements. You're either arguing for a crowd or arguing face-to-face. When you're arguing for a crowd, the goal is to get everyone else to agree with you. To hell with what your opponent says. So basically, you have to play the crowd. If they laugh when you insult your opponent, keep insulting. If they are tantalized by your flowery, intellectual babbling, then keep spouting it off.

Now, if you're arguing face-to-face, it's more about making the other person feel stupid. Direct insults rarely work, you have to aim for what you know gets a reaction. If someone hates being called immature, then somehow relate everything they say to their obvious lack of maturity. If someone cringes when they're accused of being a drama queen, make it sound like all their arguements are over-dramatic slosh. It's a matter of finding the weaknesses and going for the proverbial kick in the throat. Or balls. Or groin, or whichever painful part of the body tickles your fancy. So, without further ado, here goes, in no particular order:

SARCASM:
This is the ultimate tool. In any situation, you can be sarcastic and it lessens the impact of your opponent's arguement.
--"You're obviously wrong. The Patriot Act is a total necessity in a modern society where terrorism is a reality."
--"The Patriot Act is a total necessity in a modern society for retards. It's a breach of the constitution in so many ways...."
Imagine that response without the snappy riposte prefacing it. You'd sound like an pseudo-intellectual boor. But, because you made a joke involving retards, your arguement suddenly carries much more weight and it makes your opponent look like he's taking this way too seriously. That's one of the key advantages to Sarcasm. It makes your opponent look stuffy and overinvolved, thereby reducing the chances that people will take him seriously. After all, wouldn't you rather listen to someone who can make a point, and sound good making it? Of course you would.

INTERRUPTIONS:
This one is simple, but quite effective. When you recognize that someone is making a good point, but that point requires explanation, then in the middle of their explanation, interrupt them. Make sure your interruption is loud, clear, and at least has some point to it. The purpose of this is to knock your opponent off-balance, or what I like to call the figurative slap to the testicles. They're on a roll, they're about to defeat you with the crushing grip of reason, they're explaining just why all this will wo--"Are you a complete moron?" Bam. You come out of nowhere and verbally sucker punch them. Chances are, they won't be able to recover and you won't have to deal with the point that they were about to make. Take this opportunity to pummel them soundly.

EXAGGERATION:
This is one of the ones you use when you're losing. If your opponent makes a good point, exaggerate that point so far that it seems ridiculous. Does a person support taxing SUVs? Through the magic of Exaggeration, now that person believes that all large cars should be banned and that the government should have total control over the automotive industry. Who's gonna take something like that seriously? No one, which is why Exaggeration is beautiful. You've turned a credible arguement (not that taxing SUVs is a credible arguement, but that's a different story) and turned it into a psychotic rant that no one in their right mind would believe, much less defend. And the best part about it is that once the audience buys into your Exaggeration, your opponent is screwed and there's no way they can defend themselves. You have to use caution though, because overuse of Exaggeration can make you seem like a sensationalist a**. With no p***s.

DRAG SOMEONE ELSE IN:
Do you want the ultimate support for your arguement? There's nothing like getting someone else to agree with you. All you have to do is ask someone else what they think. Chances are, they'll side with you. Why is that? When you ask them for their opinion, you've caught them off-guard, and the odds are good that they're not in an arguing mood. So long as you can get a "Yeah" out of that person, you're in the clear. Your opponent can't argue with the other person because then they'll seem like an a** who'll attack anyone and anything to prove themselves right. Plus, you can use that person's opinion as backup to support what you've been saying. "Well, since Joe Blow agrees, LBJ was obviously a liberal douche." It's always best to ask someone who doesn't really like to argue because you'll have the greatest percentage of getting them to agree with you. And if they don't, you can always punch them in the face and say that they're stupid for not seeing your point of view.

BRING IN THE REINFORCEMENTS:
Similar to Drag Someone Else In, but also very different. Instead of merely using someone elses opinion as backup, you actually get them to argue alongside you. Obviously, two heads are better than one, and it's incredibly difficult to argue with more than one person at the same time. Not only that, but everyone you say is automatically validated by whoever is arguing along with you, so that removes the need to actually backup what you have to say. This may prompt your opponent to Bring in Reinforcements of his own, thus creating arguements of massive proportions. This happens quite often in political debates on the internet, creating the online equivolent of a Gangs of New York-style battle; two giant groups viciously and mercilessly tearing at each other with whatever crude, improvised weapons they happen to be using.

RUN AWAY!!!
This is a great tactic to use against someone who likes to argue. All that's required is that you elegantly extricate yourself from the arguement, preserving as much of your dignity as possible. Translation: get the hell out of the Dodge. Simply find any excuse to leave the arguement, as long as it places the blame on your opponent. For example: "Arguing with you is like arguing with a retard. You bob your head and spout off some babble, but other than that you make no sense, and it's a waste of my time. I'm done with this arguement." You retain your towering sense of superiority, and you don't even have to waste time defending yourself. This works especially well if the person you're arguing against already has the reputation for being a hot-head, because then it just makes them seem like they're arguing for the sake of arguing. However, one thing you can never do is get back into the arguement because then it makes you seem like a hypocritical douche.

ATTACK THE ARGUEMENT:
Another great one to use when everyone thinks your opponent argues too much. Telltale signs of this tactic are phrases such as "You never admit you're wrong," "Opinions are opinions for a reason," "Don't turn this into a fight," and "You're arguing for the sake of arguing." Basically, attack the idea of arguing rather than the actual arguement itself. The sole purpose of this is to make your opponent look and feel like an a**, and most of the time, it works. Even if your opponent points out the fact that, because you are arguing as well, you're guilty of all of the above statements, it doesn't matter. Just interrupt him with a barrage of, "See, you never admit you're wrong!" Works like a charm.

OUTSIDE ADVANTAGES:
This one is easy, yet it never fails in making you look right. Bring in something (not necessarily related to the arguement) or some past experience which proves you right, and milk it for all it's worth. Were you right in your prediction that The Matrix: Reloaded would chug? Use that to back up every arguement you make with regards to movies. Seven months ago, was your opponent wrong in saying that the Patriot Act was a good thing? Bring it up, and make sure every one of his political opinions is debunked because of that. There's no way to argue with this tactic because the past is set in stone, and if you were right once, you're always right. This works the best against people you've known for a long time because there are years of history which you can dig up to search for mud. Unfortunately, do this too much and people will think you've got no life. But chances are, you don't. So it's all good.

RAZZLE DAZZLE:
"When you're in trouble, go into your dance!" Follow the advice of good ol' Billy Flynn and give 'em the ol' Razzle Dazzle. The key to this tactic is divert, divert, divert. Turn the arguement away from you. As long as you get one person to start arguing about something that doesn't have to do with you, then you can use that time to compose yourself and come up with a decent comeback. If it doesn't work, then keep on trying to divert the arguement. Throw out every bomb possible: abortion, gays, minority rights, religion, the war, September 11, Bush, your mother, anything. Or you can impress them with something totally unrelated to the arguement, but that's the point. As long as they're not arguing against you, you're good to go.

ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG:
This is the ultimate monkey wrench in your opponent's plans because, if you admit that you're wrong, then obviously you're right in your opponent's eyes, so... that means you're still not wrong. You could go on for days thinking about that. All you have to do is, with the deepest sincerity, admit that you were wrong. This takes a lot of balls, and you can only do it if you actually know you are wrong, but chances are, it will knock your opponent so off-guard that you can come right back and argue another point, hopefully with more success. This is best done with arguements that you have not devoted much time or effort to, or are relatively inconsequential in the big scheme of things. Of course, you can also go for the sarcastic "You're right, I'm wrong. I'm sorry for ever arguing with you... *******." approach, but that's best left to the "Last Word" tactic.

SAVE FACE:
This one is sort of like Admit You're Wrong, but it doesn't actually require... uh... admitting that you're wrong? It requires a bit of skill to pull off, but it's easy enough once you get the hang of it. Twist words, make up facts, fake snippets of conversation, do anything possible to make it seem like you and your opponent are arguing on the same side. That way, you don't have to argue with that person any more. It's good for when you're fighting an uphill battle and want to... go figure... save face. Basically, this is a way of getting out of an arguement so that both people are happy. It's also good for frustrating those who love to argue, because when the suddenly realize they've wasted their time arguing in vain, they'll go home and slit their wrists. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

UNNECESSARY EMOTION:
"JESUS CHRIST, YOU *******. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO OVERBEARING? YOU RACIST A**!" Ever heard something like this before? You're having a civilized discussion on Affirmative Action and then out of nowhere, someone blows an O-ring and vents their verbal fluids all over you. Congratulations, you've been the victim of Unnecessary Emotion. It can be quite effective, especially if you have no shame and your opponent is worried about looking unconcerned or uninvolved. Against the untrained, this can knock a person so off-balance that they might even beat a retreat. However, if your opponent is used to it, then they can easily call you out for being over-dramatic and you'll come crashing down in a haze of unfriendly words.

"THE LAST WORD":
A modified version of Cop Out, "The Last Word" pulls you out of the arguement, but with the intent of making your opponent seems like they're an beligerent, arguementative a**. Duck out of the arguement by pretending that you're fed up with your opponent's inability to admit that he's wrong. Then tell him "You can have the last word. I don't care." With that, you've sealed the arguement and put your opponent between a rock and a hard place. He can't continue arguing because then he's proved your point that he's a beligerent p***k. But on the other hand, this tactic is mainly employed against people with way too much pride, and trying to swallow an insult like that is like trying to give birth. Through your rectum. This tactic is one of the most used tactics on the internet and is suprisingly one of the most accepted as well. So watch out, boys and girls.

HIGH HORSE:
Make yourself morally superior in some way, shape or form. Your opponent is selfish. Greedy. Angry. Troubled. Beligerent. Pretentious. Pompous. Any number of insults, as long as you're a pristine, innocent vision of purity and your opponent is a festering cesspool of moral corruption. This is mainly used to discredit your opponent and increase a crowd's opinion of you. It won't work very well if you're arguing one-on-one, unless your opponent is succeptible to attacks on his pride, in which case he may very well try to defend himself. If this is the case, this method works great in combination with Razzle Dazzle, because you can derail the conversation at the blink of an eye, giving you time to come up with an arguement that doesn't suck.

There you go, the comprehensive guide on how to argue when you know you've already lost. This article is meant not only as a guide, but also as a method for piercing through the volumes and volumes of ******** which you will most certainly encounter when you attempt to argue. So, whenever someone tries to use a technique listed above, simply laugh at them bawdily and scream out the name of the tactic they were trying to use. Chances are, they'll know what you're talking about and they'll break down crying. Then you know you're a winner.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/002454.html

This will be a tutorial based on my experiences dealing with the lunatic fringe. I will state my premise, Persons A and B will respond in typical troll form. All arguments proceed in this general manner:

John Cole: The sky is blue, grass is green, and birds fly.

Person A: I am not sure where you get your information, but it is just the selected Presidency of Bush/Cheney that want you to believe that the sky is blue, the grass is green, and that birds fly. In their quest for global hegemony and their never-ending pursuit for oil money, these are fictions that have been hoisted upon the public so that you will remain docile while they raid the economy to take money from the poor to give to their rich friends. You can also not forget the importance of the Jewish cabal who planned and carried out the 9/11 atrocities so as to provide cover for all of the belligerent, unilateral, military actions that we are currently undertaking. And even though I deny your premise that the sky is blue, since the Cowboy Bush backed out of Kyoto, angering the world community, the sky will shortly be nothing but a vast ozone hole devoid of anything.

John Cole: Did you even read the links I provided or did you just feel the need to lash out? Try checking out the facts I have provided.

Person A: Oh sure. John Cole always believes only his 'facts,' and fails to consider anything said by anyone else. Why don't you look into the facts I have just provided you. Besides, it is clear where your facts come from- you can not trust any of those right-wing, war-mongering cheerleaders from the Richmond Audobon Society, Michigan State University, or the Freepers at Why is the Sky Blue Dot Org. In fact, one of the members at the Richmond Audobon Society watches Fox News and the mascot at MSU is "Sparty" the Spartan, clear evidence of their bias towards aggression and a Eurocentric, phallo-centric viewpoint of a world dominated by white male aggression.

John Cole: What the hell are you talking about? Are you nuts? Go read the links I have provided, and then try to refute it based on contradictory evidence or, at the very least, rudimentary logic and reason.

This is usually when the valiant savior pipes in, coming to the aid of his comrade.

Person B: John Cole writes: What the hell are you talking about? Are you nuts?

This is typical of the profanity and belligerence I have encountered from John Cole on numerous websites. When he is losing an argument, instead of providing facts, he simply starts name-calling and swearing. Typical behavior from a Freeper. Why does everyone on the right wing hate so much? Also, John Cole conveniently leaves out that the sky is not blue at night, when it is black. Is this because he is a racist, and he has trouble with the color black? Also, everyone knows that grass is brown in the winter- the color of the millions of disaffected minorities and civilian casualties injured in our unwarranted military conquest of the world. John Cole also fails to point out that the Emu and the Ostrich can not fly, and both of them are predominantly brown/black. I think what we really need to do is ask John Cole why he hates black people and Arabs? Why do you link on your website to racists like Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs, Mr. Cole?

John Cole: Are either of you going to comment about the statements I have made, or are you simply going to keep spewing this nonsense from this fantasy world you have created?

Person A: We are not the ones living in a fantasy world, you vile racist. Unka Karl has you right where he wants you. Why don't you go home and put some holes in your pillow cases and watch Faux News or MSGOP, you ugly troll.

Person B: Hey, Person B- Did you see Raimondo's new piece in Arab News showing that Ted Rall was right about Chimpy's adminstration using the blood of Arab children to refine oil cheaper, before forcing one-legged bomb victims to carry it on their backs to an Israeli port for shipment to Halliburton? SF Indymedia predicted this 6 months ago.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Hey, Tgace, good job of staying on message. Anti-intellectualism is always easier than factual discourse, n'est-ce pas?

Whoops, I used a French term, I must just be some kind of elitist pinko commie refusing to face reality!

 

[Tgace]

Hey, Tgace, good job of staying on message. Anti-intellectualism is always easier than factual discourse, n'est-ce pas?

Whoops, I used a French term, I must just be some kind of elitist pinko commie refusing to face reality!

Youre starting to seem a lot like Hitler.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Youre starting to seem a lot like Hitler.

Heh, and you haven't even seen my way with a crowd

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just so's you know--and this is for all the sometimes silliness of the left/liberal--mostly, when people complain about racism or sexism?

It's something like what I encountered at an Eastern college...the English Department's undergraduate advisor--a guy whom all majors had to make regular appointments with?--had a six-foot poster of a girl in a tiny bikini directly behind his desk. At a community college I taught at--the preponderance of comm coll students are women--a guy who was a sociology prof wrote final exams that began with the essay question, "Discuss in detail your first sexual experience, and...."

Or look at Bob Jones University. Though taking tax dollars and federal grant money, they maintained a strict policy forbidding "interracial," dating.

And those are the NICE examples, the relatively-harmless ones. In my home state, Rhode Island, a judge threw out a rape indictment and proceeded to lecture the victim on her clothes; in Texas a couple years back, a black man got chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged to death by two white yahoos.

So if some of us get a little tired of reading repressive crap, well...

 

[Tgace]

http://www.urban75.com/Mag/argument.html

Win online arguments!
Enjoy battling it out on the bulletin boards? Like getting stuck into a good, pointless argument with only one aim - to win at any cost? Then this guide is for you - simply follow the 12-point guide below and success will be yours!

1. Get friendly
Always refer to your opponent by his/her first name. Your messages will seem warm and friendly, despite the rabid ferocity of their content. After a few exchanges, begin to use a corruption of your opponent's name - begin with "William", then change to "Billy", then change to something like "Billy-Boy". Women don't enjoy having their names shortened either, so make sure that "Mrs. Elizabeth C. Osbourne-Smythe PhD, QC" is always addressed as "Lizzy".

2. Picky! Picky!
Criticising your opponents spelling or grammar will make you look pedantic. Far better to deliberately misread a message, then follow-up with an utterly incongruous statement. And if they make a factual error - no matter how small - make sure you're on hand to remind them of their error as often as possible.

3. Be selective
Selective editing is a good way to avoid engaging with your opponent's better arguments. Simply delete that intelligent, pointed question which ends paragraph three and reply instead to the weaker arguments beneath. Should your opponent post something like "I'm sorry but you're talking crap", snip everything but the first two words then graciously accept his apology.

4. Showboat
Once the argument is in full swing, publicly thank all those people who have e-mailed you privately with their messages of support. Claim that you are too busy to reply to each of them personally at the moment, but promise to continue fighting on their behalf.

5. You've got history
Boasting about how long you've been subscribed to a forum or newsgroup is not advised. Far better to make obscure references to the forum/newsgroup when only thirteen people knew it existed. Fondly recall a similar flame-war which took place in 1989 between "Big Al" and "Phyllis from Kent". If a newly arrived opponent produces a particularly strong argument, tell them that you've already discussed (and won) this debate last year and that you've no intention of repeating your crushing arguments all over again for their benefit.



6. There's lots of you
Always refer to yourself in the plural, as though you are speaking on behalf of the whole newsgroup: "all we are trying to say is..." sounds much more pompous than "all I am trying to say is...". When other people join in the thread, the rules are simple: if they side with you, follow-up immediately and enthusiastically, congratulating them on their courage; if they side with your opponent, ignore the tossers.

7. One step ahead
Pre-empt all replies. Tell your opponent that you know exactly how he or she is going to respond to your message because you've seen it all before. List all potential counter-arguments to your position and invite your opponent to choose one.

8. Beer and arguments don't mix
Never, ever, rejoin a long-running argument after ten pints in the pub. Although the devastating logic of your drunken ramblings will seem inescapable to you at the time, your opponent will lap up the incoherent, inconsistent, beer-troubled flaws in your argument and you'll be unlikely to recover. If you've been involved in a particularly vehement argument where you've staked your reputation on the line, get a friend to lock away your PC on pub nights.

9. Bamboozle with links
If your opponent's tenacity is proving too much for you, try a Google counter-attack. This involves posting up an endless stream of vaguely related links, insisting that there's more than enough evidence contained in the 50+ linked sites to crush any counter argument. Ensure you keep the references vague and preferably link to pages that are stuffed full of even more links. If your enemy can't find the evidence they're demanding, blame them for their lack of research skills - after all, you've already provided them with ample resources.

10. I didn't say that!
Never apologise for anything, ever.

11. Play dirty
Think the argument isn't going your way? Simply post one long, highly antagonistic message in which you completely misrepresent everything your opponent has said in the last three weeks. End by martyrishly declaring that the argument has dragged on for too long and that you have no choice but to kill-file/ignore your opponent. Ignore any further messages and/or quietly re-register under a new name.

12. Victory is yours!
Won the argument? Congratulations - but remember to be utterly unbearable in victory. Make generous excuses for your opponent's behaviour ("I know you primary school technicians can be under a lot of stress", "the menopause can be a very difficult time", etc), but retain a calm tone of superiority ("the important thing is to learn from your mistakes"). State that you hope your opponent stays around and reassure him/her that other subscribers are sure to forget all about this sorry business in a couple of years.

 

[Melissa426]

Sorry for the "PG'ness" of this one, but I think its a riot.



http://www.vicecentral.com/index.php?p=35

We've all been in arguements before. And we've all been in arguements where we know the other person is wrong, but for some reason... they just won't admit it. And you can't back them into a corner. Then suddenly, people start seeing your opponent's side of things. They start agreeing with him, and as quick as lightning, everyone thinks you're the one who's wrong, and you're the a*****e in this situation. You're left shamed, humbled, and at a loss for what happened. So, how did a person who has the arguing skills of Helen Keller suddenly turn everything around? Chances are, they employed one or more of these tactics that I am about to mention.

These tactics have been gathered from the minds of professionals and experienced arguers. Also known as a******s. Also also known as Me. Now, when attempting to use these tactics, keep in mind that there are two distinct types of arguements. You're either arguing for a crowd or arguing face-to-face. When you're arguing for a crowd, the goal is to get everyone else to agree with you. To hell with what your opponent says. So basically, you have to play the crowd. If they laugh when you insult your opponent, keep insulting. If they are tantalized by your flowery, intellectual babbling, then keep spouting it off.

Now, if you're arguing face-to-face, it's more about making the other person feel stupid. Direct insults rarely work, you have to aim for what you know gets a reaction. If someone hates being called immature, then somehow relate everything they say to their obvious lack of maturity. If someone cringes when they're accused of being a drama queen, make it sound like all their arguements are over-dramatic slosh. It's a matter of finding the weaknesses and going for the proverbial kick in the throat. Or balls. Or groin, or whichever painful part of the body tickles your fancy. So, without further ado, here goes, in no particular order:

SARCASM:
This is the ultimate tool. In any situation, you can be sarcastic and it lessens the impact of your opponent's arguement.
--"You're obviously wrong. The Patriot Act is a total necessity in a modern society where terrorism is a reality."
--"The Patriot Act is a total necessity in a modern society for retards. It's a breach of the constitution in so many ways...."
Imagine that response without the snappy riposte prefacing it. You'd sound like an pseudo-intellectual boor. But, because you made a joke involving retards, your arguement suddenly carries much more weight and it makes your opponent look like he's taking this way too seriously. That's one of the key advantages to Sarcasm. It makes your opponent look stuffy and overinvolved, thereby reducing the chances that people will take him seriously. After all, wouldn't you rather listen to someone who can make a point, and sound good making it? Of course you would.

INTERRUPTIONS:
This one is simple, but quite effective. When you recognize that someone is making a good point, but that point requires explanation, then in the middle of their explanation, interrupt them. Make sure your interruption is loud, clear, and at least has some point to it. The purpose of this is to knock your opponent off-balance, or what I like to call the figurative slap to the testicles. They're on a roll, they're about to defeat you with the crushing grip of reason, they're explaining just why all this will wo--"Are you a complete moron?" Bam. You come out of nowhere and verbally sucker punch them. Chances are, they won't be able to recover and you won't have to deal with the point that they were about to make. Take this opportunity to pummel them soundly.

EXAGGERATION:
This is one of the ones you use when you're losing. If your opponent makes a good point, exaggerate that point so far that it seems ridiculous. Does a person support taxing SUVs? Through the magic of Exaggeration, now that person believes that all large cars should be banned and that the government should have total control over the automotive industry. Who's gonna take something like that seriously? No one, which is why Exaggeration is beautiful. You've turned a credible arguement (not that taxing SUVs is a credible arguement, but that's a different story) and turned it into a psychotic rant that no one in their right mind would believe, much less defend. And the best part about it is that once the audience buys into your Exaggeration, your opponent is screwed and there's no way they can defend themselves. You have to use caution though, because overuse of Exaggeration can make you seem like a sensationalist a**. With no p***s.

DRAG SOMEONE ELSE IN:
Do you want the ultimate support for your arguement? There's nothing like getting someone else to agree with you. All you have to do is ask someone else what they think. Chances are, they'll side with you. Why is that? When you ask them for their opinion, you've caught them off-guard, and the odds are good that they're not in an arguing mood. So long as you can get a "Yeah" out of that person, you're in the clear. Your opponent can't argue with the other person because then they'll seem like an a** who'll attack anyone and anything to prove themselves right. Plus, you can use that person's opinion as backup to support what you've been saying. "Well, since Joe Blow agrees, LBJ was obviously a liberal douche." It's always best to ask someone who doesn't really like to argue because you'll have the greatest percentage of getting them to agree with you. And if they don't, you can always punch them in the face and say that they're stupid for not seeing your point of view.

BRING IN THE REINFORCEMENTS:
Similar to Drag Someone Else In, but also very different. Instead of merely using someone elses opinion as backup, you actually get them to argue alongside you. Obviously, two heads are better than one, and it's incredibly difficult to argue with more than one person at the same time. Not only that, but everyone you say is automatically validated by whoever is arguing along with you, so that removes the need to actually backup what you have to say. This may prompt your opponent to Bring in Reinforcements of his own, thus creating arguements of massive proportions. This happens quite often in political debates on the internet, creating the online equivolent of a Gangs of New York-style battle; two giant groups viciously and mercilessly tearing at each other with whatever crude, improvised weapons they happen to be using.

RUN AWAY!!!
This is a great tactic to use against someone who likes to argue. All that's required is that you elegantly extricate yourself from the arguement, preserving as much of your dignity as possible. Translation: get the hell out of the Dodge. Simply find any excuse to leave the arguement, as long as it places the blame on your opponent. For example: "Arguing with you is like arguing with a retard. You bob your head and spout off some babble, but other than that you make no sense, and it's a waste of my time. I'm done with this arguement." You retain your towering sense of superiority, and you don't even have to waste time defending yourself. This works especially well if the person you're arguing against already has the reputation for being a hot-head, because then it just makes them seem like they're arguing for the sake of arguing. However, one thing you can never do is get back into the arguement because then it makes you seem like a hypocritical douche.

ATTACK THE ARGUEMENT:
Another great one to use when everyone thinks your opponent argues too much. Telltale signs of this tactic are phrases such as "You never admit you're wrong," "Opinions are opinions for a reason," "Don't turn this into a fight," and "You're arguing for the sake of arguing." Basically, attack the idea of arguing rather than the actual arguement itself. The sole purpose of this is to make your opponent look and feel like an a**, and most of the time, it works. Even if your opponent points out the fact that, because you are arguing as well, you're guilty of all of the above statements, it doesn't matter. Just interrupt him with a barrage of, "See, you never admit you're wrong!" Works like a charm.

OUTSIDE ADVANTAGES:
This one is easy, yet it never fails in making you look right. Bring in something (not necessarily related to the arguement) or some past experience which proves you right, and milk it for all it's worth. Were you right in your prediction that The Matrix: Reloaded would chug? Use that to back up every arguement you make with regards to movies. Seven months ago, was your opponent wrong in saying that the Patriot Act was a good thing? Bring it up, and make sure every one of his political opinions is debunked because of that. There's no way to argue with this tactic because the past is set in stone, and if you were right once, you're always right. This works the best against people you've known for a long time because there are years of history which you can dig up to search for mud. Unfortunately, do this too much and people will think you've got no life. But chances are, you don't. So it's all good.

RAZZLE DAZZLE:
"When you're in trouble, go into your dance!" Follow the advice of good ol' Billy Flynn and give 'em the ol' Razzle Dazzle. The key to this tactic is divert, divert, divert. Turn the arguement away from you. As long as you get one person to start arguing about something that doesn't have to do with you, then you can use that time to compose yourself and come up with a decent comeback. If it doesn't work, then keep on trying to divert the arguement. Throw out every bomb possible: abortion, gays, minority rights, religion, the war, September 11, Bush, your mother, anything. Or you can impress them with something totally unrelated to the arguement, but that's the point. As long as they're not arguing against you, you're good to go.

ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG:
This is the ultimate monkey wrench in your opponent's plans because, if you admit that you're wrong, then obviously you're right in your opponent's eyes, so... that means you're still not wrong. You could go on for days thinking about that. All you have to do is, with the deepest sincerity, admit that you were wrong. This takes a lot of balls, and you can only do it if you actually know you are wrong, but chances are, it will knock your opponent so off-guard that you can come right back and argue another point, hopefully with more success. This is best done with arguements that you have not devoted much time or effort to, or are relatively inconsequential in the big scheme of things. Of course, you can also go for the sarcastic "You're right, I'm wrong. I'm sorry for ever arguing with you... *******." approach, but that's best left to the "Last Word" tactic.

SAVE FACE:
This one is sort of like Admit You're Wrong, but it doesn't actually require... uh... admitting that you're wrong? It requires a bit of skill to pull off, but it's easy enough once you get the hang of it. Twist words, make up facts, fake snippets of conversation, do anything possible to make it seem like you and your opponent are arguing on the same side. That way, you don't have to argue with that person any more. It's good for when you're fighting an uphill battle and want to... go figure... save face. Basically, this is a way of getting out of an arguement so that both people are happy. It's also good for frustrating those who love to argue, because when the suddenly realize they've wasted their time arguing in vain, they'll go home and slit their wrists. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

UNNECESSARY EMOTION:
"JESUS CHRIST, YOU *******. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO OVERBEARING? YOU RACIST A**!" Ever heard something like this before? You're having a civilized discussion on Affirmative Action and then out of nowhere, someone blows an O-ring and vents their verbal fluids all over you. Congratulations, you've been the victim of Unnecessary Emotion. It can be quite effective, especially if you have no shame and your opponent is worried about looking unconcerned or uninvolved. Against the untrained, this can knock a person so off-balance that they might even beat a retreat. However, if your opponent is used to it, then they can easily call you out for being over-dramatic and you'll come crashing down in a haze of unfriendly words.

"THE LAST WORD":
A modified version of Cop Out, "The Last Word" pulls you out of the arguement, but with the intent of making your opponent seems like they're an beligerent, arguementative a**. Duck out of the arguement by pretending that you're fed up with your opponent's inability to admit that he's wrong. Then tell him "You can have the last word. I don't care." With that, you've sealed the arguement and put your opponent between a rock and a hard place. He can't continue arguing because then he's proved your point that he's a beligerent p***k. But on the other hand, this tactic is mainly employed against people with way too much pride, and trying to swallow an insult like that is like trying to give birth. Through your rectum. This tactic is one of the most used tactics on the internet and is suprisingly one of the most accepted as well. So watch out, boys and girls.

HIGH HORSE:
Make yourself morally superior in some way, shape or form. Your opponent is selfish. Greedy. Angry. Troubled. Beligerent. Pretentious. Pompous. Any number of insults, as long as you're a pristine, innocent vision of purity and your opponent is a festering cesspool of moral corruption. This is mainly used to discredit your opponent and increase a crowd's opinion of you. It won't work very well if you're arguing one-on-one, unless your opponent is succeptible to attacks on his pride, in which case he may very well try to defend himself. If this is the case, this method works great in combination with Razzle Dazzle, because you can derail the conversation at the blink of an eye, giving you time to come up with an arguement that doesn't suck.

There you go, the comprehensive guide on how to argue when you know you've already lost. This article is meant not only as a guide, but also as a method for piercing through the volumes and volumes of ******** which you will most certainly encounter when you attempt to argue. So, whenever someone tries to use a technique listed above, simply laugh at them bawdily and scream out the name of the tactic they were trying to use. Chances are, they'll know what you're talking about and they'll break down crying. Then you know you're a winner.

I feel like I just watched the the O'Reilly Report on Fox News