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.
