Geisman and Semantics

Why Geisman's Arguments are Completely Useless and Annoying: an Intense Analysis of his Self-Proclaimed Expertise with Semantics

For anyone who has witnessed a single game of Halo in 322 in which Geisman was participating (or even spectating for that matter), you have witnessed his incessant trash-talking (i.e. "you're bad."). His voice, especially the high-pitched squeal that constitutes the highest reaches of the human auditory range and is used in 75% of his trash-talking, penetrates the walls of Duncan like BronBron through the NBA's defense, so if you have stepped foot on the third floor you probably know what I am talking about.

Remarkably, however, there is something more annoying to listen to: Geisman trying to argue/debate anything. Worst case scenario: Geisman arguing about trash-talking in Halo, which I was lucky enough to listen to for over an hour yesterday.

It starts out with a very simple topic of debate. It can be as simple as whether a player is good or bad, or whether a bill is justified or not (two random examples, I don't know). It is really anything where Geisman disagrees. After a few good points have been made, the voices begin to raise and the hand-waving begins. The ecstasy of debate sparks a chemical reaction in Geisman's body and the wrists become abnormally supple. They flop all over the place and the moment you see ridiculous yo-yo throwing motion of the hand where the palm faces straight forward yet the fingers point straight down, you know he has already mentally turned to semantics to save himself.

He will infuriate you with his refusal to actually debate the issue at hand, instead attempting to debate the meaning of words. Oftentimes this transitions into the debate between what is fact and what is opinion, where he will claim that fact is determined by concensus of opinion. This will seamlessly flow into an epistomoligical argument, one that will not be concluded in our lifetimes.

This is a crucial point in the "argument." Geisman, in a matter of about a minute and a half, has converted an argument about health care into a debate over existence while you are left debating with yourself whether or not you should sock him in the face and get it over with. In this way, and this way only, Geisman can claim victory. However, this is his only strategy and a little self-restraint can expose his ridiculousness.

So, as I usually do, I will propose the solution, or at least my solution to this problem of letting Geisman manipulate a civilized conversation into a room of hour-long yelling:

Step 1: Play the game. There is no honor in giving up or giving in to his annoying tactics. He wants to argue, and you must argue. Just do it better.

Step 2: Call him out when he transition to semantics. Keep an eye on the wrists, they talk. Counter the suppleness of the wrists with a taut, strong point of the finger or even a clenced fist in his direction. It will get him on edge and you now have the advantage.

Step 3: Let him know you can play the semantics game, too. It's really easy, it's just no one wants to do it because it gets no where. Watch your words but don't get hung up on them. You have to play the game a little, but make sure you stay on topic.

Step 4: Strength in numbers. Everyone within 100 feet of Geisman (whether the doors are closed or not, as I said previously, physical barriers do not contain Geisman's voice) is listening, you know that, so call them over! Bombard him with arguments from everyone.

Step 5: Say something ridiculous (but not too ridiculous). This is crucial: After you have a lot of people in the room arguing against him, you will have a bunch of small, often useless arguments. That is when you have to really raise your voice, box people out, and say your thing. Make it heart-felt and use a lot of big words. Make it sound like it's supposed to make sense, but it really does not have to. I do this all the time. If you make it long enough and if you make it sound like you've thought about it before, your argument will freeze up Geisman's brain for at least five seconds as he tries to comprehend your nonsense. Then, just as he is about to prepare his follow-up question or response, bombard him again! The rest of your teammates must step up and just start arguing really loudly. By this point he is done. Wait for someone to actually make a really good argument, emphasize it, then quickly transition to Step 6.

Step 6: Laugh at him. Make him feel like he has no idea what he is talking about and a good laugh is like a good end to a joke. The punchline has already been made and to start up the debate again, he would (to continue the analogy) have to start up a new joke. Obviously, don't allow this. Instead go to the DH and eat dinner and reminisce on the hour that was (although hopefully if you followed these steps it will be much much less).