Giving Them What They Want

It is said countless times in Thank You For Arguing and on my blogs: have your opponent agree with your point right from the beginning. Who is going to listen to someone brag about all the wonderful things he/she is getting? Unfortunately humans are a selfish and greedy species. They want nothing else  than to satisfy their own needs. That is why it's important for a rhetorician to know what the audience wants and, as Heinrichs states, "convincing your audience that the choice you offer is most "advantageous" - to the advantage of the audience, that is, not you." (98). This comes in handy when you are up against someone in a discussion. To get the audience to back you up, you need to give them the best options for them to see you'll do a greater change for them. 

When coming up agains your opponent, the best option is to persuade your audience that he/she is wrong. This is where logos comes in. You want to identify and reject your opposition's facts. "If facts work in your favor,use them. If they don't (or you don't know them) don't." (109). This can sometimes be tricky as hardly any human is a walking enciclopedia. But fret not, there is an answer. Redefine terms and facts when your opponent blows you away with his knowledge and add a bit of wit. Remember one thing, put your audiences needs before yours. 

Know Your Lines

It is always important to know your stuff. Doesn't matter where you are or what it is, if it's expected from you then you should know it. No one likes talking to ignorant people. It's pretty hard and annoying to deal with when they're getting their facts wrong and making a fool out of themselves. Well, an audience don't want the same for a leader. When persuading a crowd you want to make sure you show them what they want to know. This will, as Heinrichs states, "show the audience that you know how to solve the problem at hand." (67). Who doesn't want a problem solver as a leader?

As a student, I am expected to exceed my struggles. This prepares me for my future when I need to confront everyday problems. Some people have more difficulty, some have it easier. My strategies to solve problems come from understanding how I dealt with them in the past. This is Heinrichs' "showing off your experiences." Sometimes more useful than knowledge, experience lets you analyze your past actions to correct mistakes or improve them.

We Have So Much In Common

The audience can be the key to success. When arguing, you sometimes want people to follow your ideals. That's why when persuading you want the full support of many people. By getting this you'll need extensive years of training, knowing their habitat and acting like them. Fortunately, it's simpler than that. The sixth chapter of Thank You For Arguing teaches you how to relate to the audience making them like, trust and follow you. "You simply must be seen to have the "right" values - your audience's values, that is." (57) Some how it sounds logical. People are known to trust people who share the same values with each other. Thus if you try to share the same values as your audience, they might actually be persuaded easier. Heinrichs also shows how to effectively pump your virtue for particular audiences. You should brag about yourself, reveal your tactical flaws, and changing your position when nothing's going your way.

People love to brag, even though some hate people who brag. Bragging helps "show how great you are, though it doesn't always work." (62) It's nice to share your accomplishments but tooting your own horn too many times might result into people walking away from the noise. This will surely make the audience think highly of you. Something that surprised me was the effectiveness of showing your flaws. Surely showing them might give your opponent the location of your weakness. However, according to Heinrichs, "it wins sympathy or shows the sacrifice you have made for the audience." (63) Showing you're willing show this will gain you trust from the audience. Finally, changing your side rightfully. This might save you from humiliation or might give you the reputation of a volti arepas. It's risky, that's why it's crucial for the right excuse and timing. I found these tools very interesting but at the same time controversial. Knowing how to use them might make you a savior of the people, or the villain.

Words Speak More Than Actions

The last hour and a half have been very crucial for both presidential candidates. It was their last debate before the United States Presidential elections. Though preferring to watch one of my T.V shows instead of this, I found it quite interesting. It did create the occasional laugh, scoff, sigh, whatever emotion it made you get, the use if rhetoric from both candidates was more than enough to keep track of. Ethos, pathos, logos, forensic, deliberative, and demonstrative were all shown, some more than others.

Heated as always, the debate contained a lot of forensic toward each other. Romney started by saying something about Obama "apologetic tour" around the middle east which caused Obama to back-fire Romney's "logos" with pure forensic blame proving it with his own logos. As this continued for some parts of the debate overall each candidate chose their weapon of choice.

Romney showed a lot of pathos trying to get the audience to side him by describing the U.S as having a "prosperous future, being blessed with a great military", and giving the american people choices to forget the mistakes Obama did in his four year period. Romney seemed to use these forms of rhetoric to boost himself into popularity seeing that he is doing these changes for the people and trying to have them against Obama.

Obama on the other hand used more forensic and logos. He blamed Romney for contradicting much of his statements he had done weeks before the debate. This helped him stun Romney for few seconds. His use of logos helped back his previous accomplishments he had done in his four year period as well as improve for his reelection. Obama seemed to use these forms of rhetoric to contradict and stun Romney and reach out to people on how facts and figures reflect upon his accomplishments as president.

Overall I found this final debat very interesting. I just can't wait to see who wins this years election after what seems to be a very close call.

More Options To Your Disposal

After completing chapter four of Thank You For Arguing I have now achieve greater skills in persuasion. Even though it's as basic and domestic in life, increase in knowledge of utility never hurts. When persuading, people often use emotions and facts to get what they want or to prove a point. Now Heinrichs shows us how to use character, emotions, and logic to help achieve more successfully what you're aiming. Aristotle's three elements: ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic) are all crucial for arguing. "Logos: Argument by logic. The first logical tactic we covered was concession, using the opponent's argument to your own advantage. Pathos: Argument by emotion. The most important pathetic tactic is sympathy, registering concern for your audience's emotions and then changing the mood to suit your argument. Ethos: argument by character. Aristotle called this the most important appeal of all - even more than logos." (Heinrichs 45). It is incredible how the use of each one of these tools shift the argument toward your side.

Family Guy is very famous for its satire and humor making it very enjoyable to watch. Occasionally it includes forms of rhetoric such as the ones described by Heinrichs. When I was browsing some videos on youtube, I came across this deleted scene from Family Guy. While laughing out loud, I could identify Aristotle's forms of rhetoric: ethos, pathos, and logos. Twenty seconds into the video we can start identifying forms of rhetoric. The lead seagull is trying to prove the other seagull's point of being able to be independent by showing how hunting is impossible with "webbed feet." He uses logos by identifying that seagulls are different from hawks who have claws. He also uses pathos when using logos by intimidating the other seagull by asking is he  "was going to club a field mouse to death." Last but not least the use of ethos comes at the end when the other seagull tries to explain he was thinking and the leader counters by asking him if that was the best choice. There he questions the other's wittiness and trustworthiness. The leader wins by using all three forms of rhetoric. It seems that even children and animals are capable of persuading.

Bullets Made Out Of Words

I would rather end a dispute with words than with fists. Well I bet I could take on anybody who is willing to mess with me (not really) but just thinking of the physical effort I'd have to endure, it's not worth it. Jay Heinrichs explains how arguing is much more easier and practical than fighting in the second chapter of Thank You For Arguing. His use and instruction of rhetoric shows how persuasion helps create an agreement to settle a dispute. Change of mind set, mood and willingness of the opposition helps achieve your goal in the argument without the necessity of changing his face...with your fists...or going to jail. "The basic difference between an argument and a fight: an argument, done skillfully, gets people to want to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement." (Heinrichs 17). Heinrichs examples rhetoric in argument in today's society clarifies how to successfully pull this through. Such as "couples who stayed married seemed to use their disputes to solve problems and works out differences rather than the doomed couples who attacked each other." (Heinrichs 16). Now imagine if all the world would end its disputes with arguments. No more fighting, just exchange of words instead of bullets. These months and the next to come are very significant for Colombia as they are having their first-time-ever peace talks with Las FARCs. Finally after decades of fighting, men have come to reason to throw down their weapons and start agreeing.

Colombia's government's use of rhetoric might be very crucial to en this dispute with things leaning into their favor. They might have a better understanding in rhetoric which might give them the upper hand when winning the battle over agreements. "To win a deliberate argument  don't try to outscore your opponent. Try instead to get your way." (Heinrichs 19). Las FARCs might get somethings that they want, but the government must ultimately get more in favor. Mood, mind and willingness are critical to get your priorities from the opposition. There's a long way to the end of these peace talks but an agreement and an end to disputes would mean everything for the country and continent. The best thing to do right now is to send the government a copy of this book and wait.

Learning

Finishing the lecture Butler gave me in the last few pages, his experiences have arrived. Don't get the wrong idea, I found all the information about the types of insomnia, the consequences and the causes very interesting ad can't wait to show what I learned with other people. After a whole load of logos being dumped onto one, ethos came along. Butler began to describe his characteristics as a sleeper. He shared his checklist he does every night when he goes to sleep. "Usually I like feet to be allowed out a certain bit from the end of my covers. They should never feel constrained." (Page 32). This shoves his seriousness a bit to the side while still keeping the formal register.

Using ethos makes the passage more friendly. I felt a connection with Butler as he explained his do's and don'ts while I nodded at the things I do too and smirked at the ridiculous other things. From this passage I see that Butler is trying to connect his audience more by making them know him better. Nothing beats a good lecture and an icebreaker.

First

Blake Butler has introduced his style of writing very straight forward. The seriousness of the passages in Nothing reflect his formal register. Everything he writes never breaks the seriousness he portrays. Only reading some pages, I have figured out that he is somehow working into finally making the transition from introduction to experience. Inferring that he is an insomniac, he compares objects, everyday-household objects with non-living things that never sleep. "The walls, doors, ovens, knives, etc.; they do not sleep, and they do not wish to." (Page 20).

When explaining something, Butler uses logos to back his descriptions up. An examples shows when he describes how people shift sleeping habits when changing from location to location. He backs this up with proof. " Subjects in sleep lab testing procedures have been found, out of their usual element, to exhibit the same mood and personality shift whether they had trouble sleeping their or not, despite the fact that the unsleepers did indicate higher heart rates, higher body temperature, and accelerated nervous system." (Page 21). He even puts foot notes at the end of some sentences to show where he got his information from. This makes me believe that this book is a mix between a memoir and a scientific essay.

The seriousness compares to his register and rhetoric mode. Logos makes the text more informative and serious and, the icing on the cake, formal register gives the final touches of a serious passage.

Battle of the Flout and Flaunts

Bryan A. Garner and Robert Lane Greene spark a written dispute on how language should be properly used. Language is used everyday, all around the globe. The way it is used though, varies from place to place. Most of the time when using language, mistakes are ignored or even unnoticed. Both authors debate on how “descriptivists” and “prescriptivists” contrast. Garner, a prescriptivist, tries to tell the audience how to correctly use grammar while at the same time contrasts against Greene's ideals, a descriptivist, who describes grammar without criticizing the misuse. I must say that I agree with Greene as he tries to present the idea that "language must grow and change."There is evidence of this happening all around us. The increase of slang in younger generations shows how language evolves to fit comfortably in people way of expressing their opinions.
Both debaters use logos as their rhetoric mode. The present of other authors in their arguments are example of logos they used. The ideas of famous writers reflect well with their point they are trying to get across. There are many examples of debates that use logos to support their arguments. Many political debates are examples. "If I had the power, I’d now declare the Language Wars officially at an end." (Garner) He implies how this dispute over right and wrong in grammar might never end. There is so much to cover that it seems it might be the longest war ever.

Understanding the Debate

Prescriptivists: adj.  Attempting to impose rules of correct usage on the users of a language. 

Descriptivist: adj. The doctrine that the meanings of ethical or aesthetic terms and statements are purely descriptive rather than prescriptive, evaluative, or emotive.

Permissive: adj.  Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior.

Dogmatic: adj. Inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Solecism: noun. A grammatical mistake in speech or writing.