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.