This should come as no surprise to anyone, “be specific” is OUT and “be relevant” is IN. A few years ago, one could trap any unsuspecting Argumentative Indian by asking him/her to be specific. For example, if someone made an argument that growth in Indian IT sector is slowing down a counter attack around specificity will give one power to shift the argument from Indian IT sector to US Presidential Elections. I found that simply by asking person to be specific, I seized control over the conversation and half the battle was won. In most cases people were caught off guard and unable to produce data in support of their “global generalization”. That has now changed. Unfortunately due to ubiquitous access to search engines in general and Google in specific, these days’ people have detailed drill down data on their arguments. They are not only prepared but also welcome the “be specific” challenge! The new mantra for speedy victory in an argument is to “be relevant”. Remember the argument over introduction of Genetically Modified BT Cotton and BT Brinjals? BT Cotton was immediately accepted as it helped reduce farmer suicides but BT Brinjals were rejected since the Indian Markets had attained self sufficiency on food adulteration. BT Brinjals failed the “be relevant” test. Having established the power of “be relevant” in an argument let us review argumentation in its finer details.

It must either be due to our upbringing or genetic built we do not to speak up and exercise our democratic right to argue and squish our opponents’ stupid arguments. This gives undue advantage to let people win arguments on the merit of age, senior position, social status (money) or physical power. Let all this not come in your way of making a new beginning. An opening statement in an argument establishes superiority over others. While people with authority start their argument by blah-blah-ing their position or expertise, you can skip the introduction niceties and straightaway take “high ground” position. Taking high ground is like assuming a priesthood status. This allows you to pass judgment on the group you are addressing, don’t forget to mince every word that follows. The biggest advantage of taking high ground is that when people retaliate it never reaches your level. I leave you with some tools to make an opening statement in an ongoing debate that will give you high ground status –

We have a good opening line to establish high ground position and predisposition towards non relevance of statistical data. But is this enough to win the debate? Not really, by changing the fundamental principles of good argument we have changed the game. Our opponents were not prepared to meet a challenge from unexpected quarter, they are angry. Let me alert you with some of the commonly known traps which will be deployed by your opponents to destroy your reputation -

1. Level Playing Field: Since it is difficult for people to take pot shots at the high ground, they will become nice and offer to join you. Beware of this trap, it is to sabotage your position. A typical behind-the-back-sneaker will take position by your side by saying something like, “I agree with Lalit here, in fact I will go a step further …” If you compromise your position by accepting the offered support, prepare for downhill journey.

2. Emotional Stereotypes: We must admit that we live in a busy world. At any given point we can be accused of apathy toward things like not attending to children's emotional needs or ignoring social causes or indifferent attitude towards sports, non-participation in democratic process of our nation, not voicing our opinion on matters of urgency like poverty, pets, environment, religion, water shortage etc. Emotional stereotype attack by pointing this specific weakness in us. They feel safe in the herds and will invite you to be part of some inner circle. Avoid them like a bad habit.

3. Intellectual Dilemma: When someone poses a pointed question like, “Ok we have been listening to your animated argument, why don’t you give us a solution?” You are now confronted with intellectual dilemma; if you give the solution they will ridicule you and if you don’t they doubt your intentions. This could be tricky.

4. Empowered Data Freaks: Most vocal of the arguments come from people who have newly acquired access to Internet. A few hours on Internet can empower any person to become an authority over “BP Oil Spill.” Most people believe they had sufficient technical knowledge to stop the leak and clean up the oceans. It is easy to conquer them, simply ignore them. They get easily frustrated when ignored and they leave the scene of debate, returning back to their Farmsville game.

Depending on the nature of argument, you will be confronted by some of the above traps. This is where you judiciously break your opponent by the “be relevant” logic. Intellectual Dilemma is the most difficult to crack, so let me help you with building on a scenario. You have jumped in the middle of a heated debate on “gross misuse of public fund in 2010 Commonwealth Games.” You have taken a high ground by saying something utterly stupid like, “we can either ridicule the system, mock our sports minister or be an agent of change. Government needs technical people like us to volunteer and help our country to do well during the CWG.” This may not gel well with the group and someone will challenge your bluff by posing a direct question, “we agree with your proposal, you lead the way and we will follow you.” You are now completely trapped; it would have been lot more fun if they had mocked your suggestion! My advice in such situation is to look for a white board. Get someone from the group (there is always an emotional stereotype in the room) to draw a table of tasks, days of the week and names of the volunteers. You retain high ground by saying that you will fill in your name at the very end, for the task which is not taken by anyone. Trust me the group will immediately disperse or switch the topic. See we just proved that there is no misuse of public funds. Case closed.