Sure, I can argue and I can do it pretty well. At work I can get quite aggressive, which is in direct contrast to what a soft cuddly teddy bear I am outside of work…no honestly.
But my boss has recently started adding lines much like that one to emails…and more recently in direct conversation. I wouldn’t mind, but he regularly drags me into meetings I have neither the desire nor inclination to attend, specifically so that he can utilise me as some form of verbal weapon in the war against more work heading to our section.
Initially I thought it was as a result of my general knowledge and skills, however, I now realise it is simply because I am an opinionated and obstinate bastard. Not that I am complaining, it is nice to have members of senior management in fear of me.
My rants are fairly well known in the office and I think that most people just humour me until I inevitably fall back from the ceiling.
The thing is, generally I am not argumentative outside of work. I can have debates or disagreements, but rarely do I get as vein bulgingly irate as I do at work. I am not sure why this is, maybe the fear of personal injury is somewhat enhanced outside of work.
I have a philosophy, based entirely on my opinion of myself as reasonably intelligent (read: Not stupid), which centers around the fact that I am right…until you prove me wrong. I am willing to be proven wrong (sometimes) and in fact openly tell people that if they want to beat me in an argument they just have to be able to backup their facts. I will then admit defeat and add the knowledge to the future argument munitions dump.
I like winning arguments. I win a lot of arguments. I especially like winning unwinnable arguments. Back in my college days, we had a class entitled “Communications”. Quite a vague name for a class, but I enjoyed it. Basically, I discovered really early on that I could start an argument amongst the class, sit back and wait for the lesson to end. It was here that I found my joy at going for unwinnable arguments. I am not sure how or why, but some of the guys in the class were talking about cars, one of the guys mentioned how getting anything and driving it above 60mph was pointless due to fuel consumption. I argued that you may use more fuel, but you get there quicker, so it all evens out.
To qualify the statement, I entered into the ridiculous. I posited that if a car (for arguments sake) travels 100 miles at 50mph arrives in 2 hours and uses half a tank of fuel, the same car travelling at 100mph will use twice the fuel but arrive in half the time, therefore still only using half a tank of fuel.
It is quite possibly my most favourite argument as it is utter, utter bollocks.
I won, and had 25 other classmates convinced that it was true.
In the same class I argued that the British Armed Forces should pay Poll Tax (The old Council Tax) when away on Aircraft Carriers. My statement was centered around the fact that another country stepping foot on a British Aircraft Carrier without permission could constitute an act of war. Therefore, a British Aircraft Carrier is considered to be British soil. The same argument works for British Embassy buildings and their grounds. The best part about that argument (which I won btw) is that I disagree with my own argument entirely.
I do this a lot, I argued recently with a Linux fan, from a stance where I really know very little about Linux. I got the guy so flustered that he couldn’t argue his point.
I could be a politician, but I enjoy telling the truth too much….to tell the truth
In true form, I have no idea where this is heading so let me try and drag it to a succinct and informative close
I am an obstinate bastard