How to take a position people argue with, without becoming the argument

Replies are what the feed rewards most, and the cheapest way to get them is to be wrong on purpose. That works once. The posts in the library that were argued with and kept their author's standing did something different: they took a position the writer could defend, on a subject the reader already had a view about, and made the case.

Start from the board

Ranked by replies against likes — the posts people typed at rather than tapped. Read the top ten and sort them yourself into "a position" and "a provocation". You will find the line quickly, and it is the line this tutorial is about.

A position, not a provocation

Hot take: Online gaming should be completely free, this is a completely arbitrary price with no real benefit.

Notice the shape: a plain claim, then the reason in the same breath — "arbitrary price, no real benefit". The reader who disagrees has something to disagree with, which is what makes the reply worth writing. A provocation gives them only the writer to argue with.

The contrarian pattern guide covers every post in the library that opens against the consensus, with what separates the ones that travelled. The consistent finding: name the consensus precisely enough that people recognise their own view in it, then contradict it in one sentence — and earn it in the next.

Before you write

Answer three questions honestly:

1. Whose view are you contradicting? Say it precisely. "Everyone" is not a view; "founders who think a waitlist is a launch" is.
2. What is your evidence? A number, a case, a mechanism, your own experience. If the answer is "I just think so", write a different post.
3. Would you say it to that person's face? If not, the post is a provocation wearing a position's clothes, and the replies will treat it as one.

The steps, in ViralLoop

1. Open the board and Save three posts where you can see the case being made, not just the claim.
2. Remix them. In the brief, write the consensus view in one sentence, your disagreement in one sentence, and your evidence in one or two. Set the goal chip to Start a debate and the tone to Blunt and opinionated — or Calm and measured, which travels further than you would expect on this board.
3. Take → Opening and Take → Structure on the source whose case is built most like yours.
4. Generate three. Keep the one whose second line is the evidence. Discard any that spend the second line restating the first.
5. Refine → version 2 on the keeper with Keep → Opening, Structure and Change → Tone if it came out sharper than you would say to someone's face.

What to expect

Replies, including from people who are right. The posts on this board that aged well are the ones whose authors replied to the best objection in earnest. That reply is often the post that travels furthest of all.