Conforming an assertion that I have been frequently and consistently making for many years, a study by Lahore’s prestigious Institute for Quick Online Research has revealed conclusive evidence that I have been right all along, and the people who have been questioning my opinion are wrong.

The detailed, rigorous and multilayered research that explored the accuracy, correctness and usefulness of my opinions on a variety of different topics – ranging from science and technology to politics and policy – revealed to the disappointments of my friends and family, bosses and colleagues, and readers and critics that they have all been wrong on the various occasions when they have challenged my vast knowledge, deep insight and unmatched acumen. The Institute for Quick Online Research is a peace-building initiative that promotes the use of technology for the resolution of minor conflicts and disagreements by looking things up on the Internet before a debate escalates. The findings were released on Monday.

“After reviewing a wide variety of conflicting evidence and opinion on a range of different topics, we came to that conclusion in a matter of minutes,” announced man with a smartphone, noted in IQOR for his sound research skills, impeccable time management, attention to detail, flexible truth criteria, loose ethical standards and the ability to multitask. Amid gestures that body-language experts say indicated extreme self-confidence and self-righteousness, he wasted no time in announcing the findings: “Yes! I was right!”

But critics say a number of dissenting voices of people who stared at his mobile phone in disbelief were largely ignored.

“How can you beat a man with a cellphone, an internet connection, and the relentless determination to win a debate?” asks an analyst. “I have not been able to read the detailed findings of the research, but on the face of it, it appears that the conclusion is in line with general observation and standards of common sense. It has always been my objective, calculated opinion that I am always right.”

An information technology expert at the Ministry of IT believes there is no need for further verification. “Wikipedia is not set in stone,” he asserts. “If it does not comply with the ultimate principle that I am always right, then there is no harm in contributing to the body of knowledge in a particular field by editing the Wikipedia entry of that topic. History, law and Wikipedia are written by those who win. And it is safe to assume that if this is an argument, I win.”

Endorsements by famous politicians were swift and total. An opposition politician announced another round of protests against the government at a press conference later on Monday. “The study is clear and unequivocal in its conclusion,” he said. “What other evidence do we need to prove that the elections were rigged?” The report is the strongest credible proof that has emerged so far that in favor of his accusations that had remained unsubstantiated so far.

Earlier reports had suggested that while I may be right in some cases, there is plausible possibility – depending on a number of factors – that I may be wrong in a certain percentage of cases. But the implications of the explosive new findings impact more than just the academic and policy circles. A father of two believes a version of the study must be made part of the school curriculum. “It is not enough for us to just tell them why we are the best people in the world,” he says. “Children have inquisitive minds, and they will ask questions. They will ask why we are the best people in the world. This conclusive scientific will settle such questions once and for all.”

But in spite of its wider positive implications, the report comes with its own set of warnings. Researchers at IQOR believe that sustainable peace is not possible by only establishing the truth. A second and equally important factor is consensus and reconciliation. “It is of utmost importance to ensure that once a truth claim has been made after a quick online research, all other parties must submit and surrender,” the report suggests. “You may want to question an assertion or win a debate,” one expert asks, “but is that goal worth hours or even days of reading or data collection in rigorous research that is neither quick nor online?”