This article is classified "Real"
First off, the inaccuracy in the title should be noted. Very few
Hitchhikers, or people in general for that matter, are immortal, so the
"infinitely prolonging" bit is at best a misleading hyperbole, and at
worst flat-out wrong. This is not suggesting taking up arguing full-time,
since there is so much else out there to do, it is merely offering
instructions on something to do to pass the vast amount of dead time
available to the common hitchhiker.
Winning arguments is a rather popular subject, because at times it can be
very practical. An oft neglected subject, however, is that of prolonging
arguments. In this method of arguing, the objective is not to win [1] but
to pass time. Anyone can win an argument with a little persistence, but
only the true artist can keep a single, pointless discussion vibrant for a
lifetime, providing endless hours of entertainment, not only to the
participants, but also to countless others within earshot.
The most delicate portion of this art is the selecting of a topic.
Therefore, the following suggestions are given. You may, of course, feel
free to disagree.
1) Do Not Argue About Anything of Consequence. This includes, of
course, politics. Not because politicians ever get anything
of consequence done, but because these sorts of discussions
tend to move beyond the "friendly chat" stage, to the
"large-scale wars with intercontinental ballistic missiles"
stage.
2) Do Not Argue About Anything Dangerous. Defending Erwin
Schroedinger against a supporter of Werner Heisenberg is much
safer than, for example, defending God versus a loyal fan of
Zeus, mainly because both Schroedinger and Heisenberg,
regardless of their relative importance to science, lack the
ability to smite you.
3) Do Not Argue About Anything Definite [2]. Along the same line
as the above rule, nothing could be more annoying [3] than
spending months arguing passionately that the Eiffel Tower
doesn't exist, only to arrive in Paris and see that it in
fact does. A much better angle to take is that the Eiffel
Tower is located somewhere in Texas. Then, you can wander
throughout most of Texas and still claim to be correct.
This is actually very advisable, since there is little else
to talk about while in Texas.
4) Do Not Argue About Anything Immediate [4]. "Where are we
going to eat dinner?" is a perfectly practical and immediate
question, and therefore a dreadful one to have a good argument
over. Sure, you can have a great time passionately comparing
and contrasting the finer points of various cuisines, but, in
the end, you're still just hungry. If you must, however,
argue this topic, it is suggested that before posing the
initial question, you order out for pizza. If you have a
good argument going, no one will even realize when the food
arrives that the whole discussion has been made moot.
5) Do Not Go Along With Conventional Wisdom. Always select the
most outrageous opinions to defend. This not only guarantees
you plenty of opponents, but adds to the over all absurdity of
it all and allows you to demonstrate your superior skill. Any
fool can come up with reasons to believe that chickens exist,
but only a genius can indefinitely argue that chickens are the
fabrication of an elite group of Spaniards bent on world
conquest.
6) Do Not Choose A Too Complicated Topic. Few people can keep
up with discussing the relative validity of the particle
nature of light versus its wave nature, but most people can
handle "less filling" versus "tastes great" [5].
Arguing, if done correctly, can provide cheap enjoyment for hours requiring
nothing save for a head full of ideas, which can be purchased on the black
market so that even most hitchhikers can have their very own.
[1] In fact, if you follow these suggestions, you most likely will never
win.
[2] Unless the topic is exceedingly abstract. I was witness to one fine
debate where the opponents argued the existence of thought. The scary
thing is that the sides were not for/against.
[3] Well, possibly Jim Carrey.
[4] Following this advice even allows one to argue something that
eventually will be definite. Take, for instance, the question of who
will win the Earth's Soccer [6] World Cup in the year 2005. If the
year is 1996, one could easily spend a great portion of the next
several years proclaiming some perfectly absurd point of view. Two
things, however, must still be carefully avoided: you must make sure
to part company with your arguing companions well before 2005, lest
the actual result comes out, unequivocally proving you to be a fool;
and you must avoid the type of smart-ass that will point out that there
will in fact be no World Cup in 2005, since they only happen every 4
years.
[5] This will vary with the company that you are in. If you, for example,
are Albert Einstein and happen to see Werner Heisenberg and Erwin
Schroedinger sitting around looking bored, have at it; you'll be doing
us all a favor. I realize that there is some sort of consensus that
has been reached on this issue, but I doubt I'm the only one who is
just a little bit uncomfortable with the resolution.
[6] Or "Football", as most non-American-types call the sport.