Catalyst

After reading the first chapter of Evgeny Morozov's  The Net Delusion I have been introduced to the impact the internet had on the Iranian Green Movement. in 2009, Iranians gathered in Tehran to protest against the presidential elections, which had been thought to be rigged, or unfair. Protesters demanded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be removed from office. The global spread and awareness of these protests was made possible by an unlikely source: Twitter. The social networking site was used as a medium of communication by the protesters, and it acted as a catalyst to impulse the movement around the world.

Showing Off

I can confidently say my favourite television show is How I Met Your Mother. It is the perfect combination of hilarious and actual story-telling (because a lot of shows don't tell a story, just episode after episode). After reading chapter 20 of Thank You for Arguing I have become more aware of the cleverness behind the show. Dialogue is an important part of the show. Obviously, I don't mean every word spoken, but the quoting of characters by other characters (if that makes any sense).

Powerful Agreement

Fallacies are all over argumentation. In fact, fallacies are often responsible of tipping an audiences hat to one person rather than another. Heinrichs, in Thank You for Arguing, goes into the many fallacies that there are. In chapter 15, he introduced the fallacy of power, which is "because the guy in charge wants it... it must be good" (page 157). This fallacy is definitely present in the discussion on terrorism between Jon Stewart and Billy O'Reilly. The "boss," or in this case the one with the better reputation, has more followers than the other, simply because of his reputation. The other presenter provides strong evidence to prove is points, and disprove the other's. However, he must battle the fallacy of power, which in this case favours the other man.

Calming the Passions

The passive voice is something I've always feared. Whether it's on the SAT, or an essay for class, it is such a dreaded practice that I have been wearisome of using it. However, Jay Heinrichs presents the idea that the passive voice is actually a tool that can be used in rhetoric. He calls it a "rhetorical device to calm the passions" (page 91).  The passive voice is an excellent tool to "[disembody] the speaker and [remove] the actors" (page 91).  In other words, it works as a guilt remover. George Bush often used the passive voice to pass the blame onto... well no one. More importantly, he used it to take the blame away from himself: "Mistakes were made" (Bush). Mistakes were made? Seriously? Don't you mean I made mistakes?

Following the passive voice, Heinrichs explains the incredible power of humour. The author explains the many types of humour, and their characteristics. furthermore, he shows that humour can get an audience on your side. Using urbane humour, witty humour, facetious humour, or banter can be a strong persuasion tool, but it must also be used with care as it can turn an audience against you as easily as it can get them on your side.

Heinrichs also is an advocate of commonplaces in persuasion. This is spotting the the viewpoint "your audience holds in common" (page 100). In other words, a commonplace is often called a cliché, but a cliché has a "broader connotation" (page 100) so we tend to say commonplace more often.

Heinrichs also goes into a stance, which is "the position you take at the beginning of an argument" (page 120). And he then explains that if the stance comes down, one must rely on facts, definition, quality, and relevance.

At Level

Chapters 7-9 of Thank You for Arguing deal with ethos, pathos, and logos. More specifically, these chapters deal with the manipulation of these elements to persuade an audience.

An important aspect of this is practical wisdom. Quite simply, practical wisdom is when the audience considers you a sensible and knowledgeable person, enough to handle the issue at hand. This is a fantastic persuasion tool, as it "entails the sort of common sense that can get things done" (page 67), which audiences love as they feel the candidate is capable of doing his job. Heinrichs then explains that to accomplish practical wisdom, one must "seem to take the middle course" (page 69). The middle course, in this case, is moderation. Heinrichs explains that "the ancient Greeks had far more respect for moderation than our culture does" (page 69). And the Greeks were the kings of rhetoric, so we should just listen to them! But seriously, the importance of moderation is often overlooked by people, yet it is extremely important in persuasion as it shows the audience that you are neither extremely conservative, nor extremely liberal, so to speak. Furthermore, he emphasizes the importance of being honest-- or more precisely, seeming honest. He presented Quintilian's thoughts on the matter to further this idea: "A speaker might choose to feign helplessness by pretending to be uncertain how to begin or proceed with his speech. This make him appear not so much a skilled master of rhetoric, but as an honest man" (page 75). And honesty is a virtue the world admires. It is because of its importance that it is so often mentioned in society, and so often criticized as well.

These chapters lend the idea that for someone to be a good persuader, he must be able to seem at level with his audience. This again goes back to the decorum topic, but the chapters focus on the specific ways to relate with an audience.

Decorating Your Person

Most would agree that Zach Galifianakis is a funny guy. I would probably say the same thing if asked about the man. But how does he manage to capture his audience so well, and really live his character-- characters -- offscreen? Decorum.

Decorum is ancient practice, which plainly means making yourself liked by an audience. In other words, fitting yourself to what others want to see. This is a powerful rhetoric technique that helps persuade an audience: "Decorum tells the audience, 'Do as I say and as I do'" (page 46).

This term was first coined by the ancient Romans. Decorum was widely used in politics, and no doubt still is. In fact, it is used outside of politics just as widely as it is in politics. Zach Galifianakis is a master of this technique, whether he knows it or not. Zach, over the years, has fit his personality to the awkward personas he plays on stage. He has introduced his characters into his own personality, just as the audience wants him to do. I mean who wouldn't want an Alan hanging around all the time? Actually, I doubt I'd want an Alan hanging around me: "As Cicero said, decorum that works for one person may not work for another, even in front of the same people" (page 49). It doesn't matter what I think though, what most people expect him to be is a person like Alan. And it's difficult to say if he really is like him, but he sure appears to be. This is the essence of decorum, appear to be what the audience wants, not what you necessarily are.

Really decorum is like Christmas lights: it doesn't really matter how dysfunctional, unorganized, and filthy  the house is on the inside, people outside will like it if the lights look good.

The Question

The first two chapters of Thank You for Arguing presented the reader with ways to improve debates and arguments. Thank You for Arguing, being really a textbook, first impresses the audience with a new way to view the world- through rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and persuasion is the goal in arguments and debates. In these chapters, Jay Heinrichs, the author of the book, develops a central idea in argumentation: one should look to get his way, not to outscore an opponent. This concept was explained by Heinrichs as he stated, "The audience liked Kerry's logic, but they preferred Bush-- not the words but the man. Kerry won on points; Bush won the election" (page 19).

Definitely I can tie this in to my daily routine. When arguing with my parents, specifically, I often try to get as many "points" a possible in the argument. And often times I do. However, I rarely win the battle. This comes through my attacks. Attacking another person will get you the points you so badly want, but it the ability to persuade your enemy's willingness to act that will help you win the argument. And after all, the whole point of arguing is to get your way, right? So, why fight when you can persuade? Why attack when you can defeat your opponent by playing with their mind, playing with their mood? Heinrichs said it, "By changing your audience's emotion, you make them more vulnerable to your argument-- put them in the mood to listen" (page 23). So why try to get as many points as possible, when you can win the argument with a decent amount of rhetoric? That's a question I should have asked myself years ago.