Too Scared to Argue? A 56-Year-Old in Guangzhou Will Do It for $26

If confrontation makes your stomach turn, a man in southern China has a proposition. Pay him ¥188, roughly $26 by the viral English framing and closer to $28 at the current exchange rate, and he will have the argument for you.

Video filmed by a passer-by shows a bald man standing in a crowd holding a red sign with three large characters reading "代吵架", meaning “argue on your behalf”, above a QR code for adding him on WeChat. The clip spread widely on Chinese platforms in September, and an English-language version from the TikTok account China Minutes carried it to a global audience in October. The Indian Express picked it up on 26 October 2026.

What the viral clips leave out is that Chinese reporters tracked him down weeks earlier, paid for his service, and found the reality somewhat tamer than the sign suggests.

Who Is the Man Offering to Argue for ¥188

His full name has not been reported. Speaking to Hubei-based outlet Jimu News on 22 September, he gave his surname as Kong, said he is 56, and said he has been holding the sign in Guangzhou’s Panyu district since late June this year. The woman who filmed the widely shared clip said in her comments that she encountered him in Panyu, and the reporter found he had appeared in other users’ videos before. Nothing about his background or previous work has been published.

During a call with the reporter, he described himself as the Guangzhou uncle who charges to argue, and claimed positive feedback across social platforms. That claim is his own, and no reviews have been independently confirmed.

How His Unusual Arguing Service Works

The $26 figure is only part of the price list. Kong told Jimu News that the service is split into online and in-person options. Online arguing costs ¥50, which is roughly $7 at current rates. An in-person visit anywhere within the Guangzhou area costs ¥188, roughly $28 at current rates. Both options come with no stated time limit. So the ¥188 widely quoted abroad is the local in-person rate, and the cheaper phone version is the one most customers outside Guangzhou could actually use.

He also told the outlet he offers two sideline services, namely breaking up with someone on a client’s behalf and attempting reconciliations. Transactions appear to run through WeChat, and there is no evidence of a registered business.

The Jimu test is the only documented customer experience. The reporter paid ¥50 with a made-up grievance and supplied their own phone number as the target. The resulting 11-minute call was conducted in a gentle tone, no quarrel ever developed, and afterwards Kong sent a screenshot of the call log, announced he had won, and stopped answering questions. At one point he told the reporter that he could tell from their voice they would be no match for him, and that his style is to match the strength of whoever he is facing.

What Kind of Disputes He Handles

In the China Minutes clip he lists disputes over unpaid wages and arguments about refunds for tutoring classes or botched plastic surgery as the kind of cases he can step into, so customers do not have to confront the other party themselves.

Each example points to a familiar frustration. A worker owed money by an employer who keeps stalling, a parent who paid upfront for lessons that were cancelled or never delivered, a patient with a cosmetic result they did not sign up for. In all three cases the person with the grievance is typically the weaker party, dealing with a business that handles complaints every day. No specific customer cases have been reported.

Why People Are Paying Someone Else to Argue for Them

This is the analytical part, so treat it as interpretation rather than fact. The appeal is obvious enough. Many people would rather lose money than endure a shouting match, and an outsider with no emotional stake can stay calm and persistent where the aggrieved party freezes or loses their temper.

The idea is not new in China. Back in 2019, The Paper found numerous listings on Taobao offering to argue or scold on buyers’ behalf, priced from ¥5 to ¥200 and conducted by phone or text, with surcharges for regional dialects and most payments routed through WeChat. Beijing Youth Daily that year noted a premium tier that promised civilised arguing, with no profanity and only logic, and a full refund if the argument was lost. Kong’s contribution is taking the pitch off the internet and onto a street corner, which is largely why it went viral.

His Rules on Arguing Without Fighting

Kong frames his work as de-escalation rather than abuse. He told Jimu News that his aim is to resolve conflicts, and that proxy arguing is not the street-cursing people imagine. That, he said, is a serious offence that can get someone detained for seven to fifteen days. The English-language coverage similarly reports that he rules out physical fights and foul language.

He has reason to be careful. When the Taobao listings surfaced in 2019, a lawyer quoted by Guangming Daily’s Wenzhai Bao said charging to argue with or insult people online was illegal. Lawyers have warned that services aimed at insulting others or disturbing their peace can lead to legal trouble. Whether a mild-mannered phone call about a refund crosses that line is a different question, and one no authority has addressed in his case.

How Social Media Reacted

Jimu News reported the original clip had been reshared more than 100,000 times. In the comments, plenty of users said they could use the service, while others joked that he looked too kind to win an argument. Some told the outlet they had tried adding his WeChat. One succeeded but never hired him, and another could not get through. No verified figures exist for the international reposts.

Whether This Unusual Service Could Actually Help Customers

Possibly, within narrow limits. Having a composed third party make a call about an overdue wage or a refund can shift the dynamic, and the price is low enough that many people would risk it.

But the only documented test ended with no argument and a self-declared victory. Nothing in the reporting shows a customer actually recovering money. A proxy caller has no legal standing, cannot compel anyone to pay, and may be ignored outright. For wage disputes and consumer refunds in China, formal channels such as labour arbitration and consumer complaint hotlines carry weight that a stranger with a sign does not.

The latest verified reporting on Kong dates from 23 September 2026. Everything since has been reposts of the same clip.

For ¥188, then, you are buying someone willing to make the uncomfortable call you have been avoiding, not a guarantee the other side will listen.