EPT
HTBAWYA Lesson 1
This is the first entry in my "How to Be Annoying When You Argue" series. This is a guide on how to win any argument. Many of you may be wondering "what if you succeed in being annoying yet still lose the argument?" Well if you believe that to be true maybe you shouldn't be reading this.
You must have this mentality: you are the hero and master of all that is argument, and anyone in your way is simply a hapless victim. If you do not have this mindset when entering an argument you cannot win.
So that brings us to the first and arguably most important lesson:
1. Starting an Argument
In your travels you may encounter people that do not wish to argue. This is okay--in fact, sometimes these people are the most fun to argue with. It's easy to be offensive, but you want to start an argument, not a fight. Here is an example of simply being offensive:
Victim: Hi John, what's up?
Hero: Bitch.
Why don't random insults work? Well they do, but not to start (we'll cover this later). To begin an argument you have to pick a contradiction with the victim and stick with it. However, your rhetoric within the contradiction-initiation step is vital. See the following example:
Victim: I think it's raining outside.
Hero: No it's not.
While this approach may turn out fine if it's actually raining (thus leading to an argument), there are several negative responses to this type of contradiction-initiation. The victim may actually capitulate (especially if it's not raining) or the victim may simply not care enough to pursue arguing. I suggest the following more reliable contradiction:
Victim: I think it's raining outside.
Hero: No you don't.
As you can see, by stealing their opinion you have infringed upon the basic core of their rights as a human being. They may stammer and become flustered. This is normal and a good sign. Opinion-stealing will inevitably escalate into a full argument, and then you can bring all your HTBAWYA skills into play.
2. The Moral Advantage
During arguments there exists a morality quotient (MQ) for each participant. The higher your MQ is relative to your victim the stronger attacks he or she will accept without resorting to violence. This invisible line is called the violence threshold (VT). If crossed, the situation is no longer an argument--it is a fight. Therefore, at all times it is optimal to maintain or increase your own MQ while decreasing (or containing) your victim's. This can be accomplished by following two simple rules:
(a) Turn everything into a personal attack.
(b) Take as much offense as possible.
Rule (a) is very easy to follow, and is usually executed immediately after the contradiction-initiation:
Victim: I think it's raining outside.
Hero: No you don't.
Victim: Uh... yes I do.
Hero: Are you calling me a liar?
This is also a good demonstration of what's called insult reinforcement. If you catch your victim in an obvious personal attack (as the Hero did in the above example), it is best to make your victim repeat it so you can extract maximum offense. Oftentimes your victim will deny ever insulting you. They are lying. Simply continue reinforcement.
(continued)
Hero: Are you calling me a liar?
Victim: What?
Hero: Why are you called me a liar?
Victim: When did I call you a liar?
Hero: Many times, but I forgave you. Why are you calling me a liar today?
Victim: I didn't! I've never called you a liar!
Hero: You just did, are you calling me a liar about that too?
Victim: No!
Hero: I can't believe you called me liar. Is that what you really think?
Victim: I don't think you're a liar! I never said you were!
Hero: I can't believe this. Is that all I am to you? A big liar?
etc.
As you can see, the Hero's MQ has almost reached critical mass. At that point the victim is trapped and can do nothing to extricate himself/herself from the situation. Whether its raining outside is now irrelevant. The only course of action for him to take is to apologize and thus concede the argument.
Lastly, you must remember to trivialize your victim's claims of being offended. He or she is not really offended. It is just a ploy to gain MQ. The following two rules always hold true:
(1) He/she is overreacting.
(2) You have had worse.
Victim: I can't believe he called me ugly.
Hero: Everyone gets called ugly. I get called ugly ten times a day.
Victim: He said it while I was in the room!
Hero: Just yesterday we were in the same room, and someone called me ugly. In fact, that someone was you.
Victim: What?
Hero: Why did you call me ugly yesterday?
Victim: I never said you were ugly...
Hero: Are you calling me a liar?
In this example, the Hero did not even have to use a contradition-initiation. Instead, he ingeniously combined all four rules and started an argument at the same time. Creativity and efficiency are just two of the many traits you must develop.
Also, for fun:
+ Show Spoiler +
[During 2v2 Proleague]
Ally Chat KTF:
Yellow: they are massing in the midd--
Reach: I AM REACH!
Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo--
Reach: I AM REACH!
Yellow: help they comi--
Reach: I AM REACH!
Yellow: he--
Reach: REACH!
Yellow: i--
Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1:
Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes
Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win.
Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine.
Iloveoov: macro?
Ally Chat KTF:
Yellow: they are massing in the midd--
Reach: I AM REACH!
Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo--
Reach: I AM REACH!
Yellow: help they comi--
Reach: I AM REACH!
Yellow: he--
Reach: REACH!
Yellow: i--
Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1:
Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes
Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win.
Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine.
Iloveoov: macro?
![[image loading]](http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/3103/1128258259136le8.jpg)
!
