How to win an argument

by Dave Barry, 1981

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and 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. (JD)

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 entralls your date. But if you drink several large shots of Jack Daniels, 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 weightly-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 irrelevent 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 opponents says - Lincoln died in 1865.
You say - You’re begging the question.

OR

You say - Liberians, like most Asians…
Your opponents 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 Adolf Hitler might say” or “You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”

You now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

The book, titled “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Time,” was released on Nov. 16, 2010.

The church has long opposed the use of condoms because they are a form of contraceptive. The Vatican has always been criticized for its stance against condoms.

Benedict pointed out that condoms are not a “moral solution,” according to the article. He said that in the cases of male prostitutes, they could be justified “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.”

Benedict said that justification for this use is “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexually.”

He used the example of male prostitutes as opposed to married couples where one spouse is infected. Church officials in Africa have pressured the Vatican to approve use of condoms for monogamous couples in order to protect the uninfected spouse from infection.

In 2009 while traveling to Africa, the Pope drew heavy criticism from the UN, AIDS activists and European governments when he said that the AIDS problem in Africa could not be resolved through the use of condoms. He said that condoms would actually worsen the problem.

In his book Benedict said that condoms were not the way to deal with AIDS, and in other parts of the book he reaffirmed the church teachings on contraception and abortion by saying, “How many children are killed who might one day have been geniuses, who could have given humanity something new, who could have given us new Mozart or some new technical discovery?”

In the book he also repeated the church’s position that the only sure way to prevent AIDS is to practice abstinence and marital fidelity.

Brilliant.