The novel Thank You for Arguing has given me a whole new perspective on arguing. I have never thought about changing the way I argue in order to get a point across better and have the other person agree with me easier. I feel like Heinrichs is describing techniques that most people use without even realizing what they are doing. For example, I work at a daycare center and one of the easiest ways, I have found, to get a child to stop crying was by changing the subject. Most of the time I just comment on their shirt that might have a train or an animal on it and usually the child forgets all about what he or she had been crying about in the first place. I never really thought too much about it, but now after reading these chapters Heinrichs has made me realize that arguing can be used in a much more useful way.

In chapter 4, Heinrichs begins to discuss logos, ethos and pathos. I believe that the most effective out of these three strategical argument types is pathos. Pathos is argument by emotion. By triggering peoples' emotions I feel like you can manipulate them to do just about anything within reason. 

Review on this weeks readings

I found many interesting things this week in the novel Thank You for Arguing. I think the author brings up many interesting points and perspectives throughout the first chapters. In the first chapter, I liked the method of agreeing with someone, so they unconsciously cause one to win the argument. I found it interesting how the author describes argument as essentially being everywhere in our daily lives. It can be seen in TV commercials, politics, daily sales, and much more. I found it comical, that the author alludes to the fact his own cat is trying to make an argument with him, as he licks his arm. Also the author goes into great deal about using the art of seduction in an argument. He explains that setting the mood, and then attempting to change someone’s mind is an effective strategy. This then leads to agreement. A few more points I found interesting in the reading this week, were in chapter three. Here the author talks about how past tense, present tense, and future tense, can essentially effect an argument. He explains that using blame in argument can be rendered ineffective. It relates to using the past tense, and does little to the effectiveness of the argument itself. It suggest that using the future tense has a better effect on the argument. He also talks about three very important aspects of an argument, blame, choice, and morals. I thought this was a very interesting twist. I had never thought to analyze these three specific components. So far, I think this book has very good perspectives, and has really helped me understand more about argument. 

BACK TO THE FUTURE! (kind of)

As interesting and intriguing Thank You For Arguing has been so far, there is one detail Heinrichs put on our plates that has really stood out to me and was slightly perplexing and surprising at first--something I really had to try and wrap my head around:

"A successful argument, like anything about the future, cannot stick to the facts" (Heinrichs 32).

Naturally, we do not have facts about the future; we have speculations and predictions.  Yet when I read this, it seemed paradoxical and backwards that all of our arguments about the future are merely those speculations and predictions rather than solid factual information.  So I feel that this idea sort of completely encompasses the purpose of Heinrichs' entire book (although I can only assume.  We have only read 5 chapters and, you know, the future is only speculation and all).  If there are no real facts about the future, then basically the most essential thing about these arguments is how the rhetor makes us take his/her side.  It's the method, not the information.  Great speakers and arguers can make us believe almost anything they want if they do it well--true or not.  Who doesn't like a good verbal seducing every once in a while?  So without these ideas we've talked and read about so far like tenses and goals and good ol' logos, ethos & pathos, we wouldn't trust what anyone said about the future.  We wouldn't have opinions about what we want our world to look like, or about how to make peace in the future.  We would be stuck--a world in which we would continuously blame others for the past and bombard the earth with boundaries between people and cultures and beliefs.  It's almost as if without these tools for making convincing arguments about the future, we would never see positive steps towards a better world.  The argument is everything--even when the facts don't exist.

So far, I find Thank You for Arguing one of the most interesting books I have read. It really makes me think about arguments or even just conversations I’ve had in the past. It also gets me thinking about what I can do to make people do what I want. Heinrichs really puts insight into what I say and what I can do to become a more successful person. I really enjoy the sidebar notes that he has because he gives great advice on what to do in real life situations. His own personal examples also really help me to understand the point he is trying to make, like the story about him trying to get his son to wear pants instead of shorts to school.

            Having just read the fifth chapter, I found the idea of decorum really interesting, because I had no idea that it had to do with ethos, or argument by character. Hienrichs makes a great point when he says don’t dress or act like them, but how they expect you to. I never really thought about it but it is so true. Most kids would not want to see their parents dressing exactly like them rather the parents would appeal to their kids more if they dressed the way their kids expected them to dress. Sometimes you have to conform to what society wants or expects out of you to make a persuasive argument. Although it may seem shallow or typical, it is a very smart thing to consider when trying to make someone or society do what you want.

Gollapudi Week 1

In reading Heinrich's Thank You for Arguing, I noticed that Heinrichs likes to bring up a certain point in arguments that I hadn't really ever thought about. He always seems to mention the idea of "allowing your opponent to 'win', in such a way that you emerge victorious." Personally, when I argue with others, I tend to get very defensive, which is probably why people are so turned off in arguments with me, as a result of my overbearing nature when it comes to these things. In looking at Heinrichs' points. he suggests that one should momentarily concede defeat in terms of arguing, but then using that "conceding" and turning it around in such a way that it benefits them. Such an example would be the argument presented by the author and his son. The author conceded defeat when arguing with his son for the toothpaste, but in doing so, he boosted his son's ego somwehat, putting him in a more amiable state of mind, which resulted in the author actually truly winning the argument. I feel that if I were to make use of this skill in future arugments I have with my peers and contemporaries, it would benefit me greatly. I realize now that people enjoy hearing what they'd like to hear, and reaffirming those things they like to hear would benefit me greatly, and would work very well in my favor, if I honed in on that skill in the future.

In reading the first five chapters of Thank You For Arguing, I have found myself being more intuitive to conversations between others and myself. I always knew that in arguments and disagreements, there are ways to persuade an individual to agree with you or to do what you want. For example, I’ve known that by admiring the other person’s thoughts, ideas, and/or opinions, it opens their mind up more to other things. If you put a person’s thoughts, ideas, and/or opinions down right away, then they will get defensive and more difficult to persuade. In the second chapter of Thank You For Arguing, it surprised me when Heinrichs suggests that by seducing the audience, you are changing the mood, and therefore, on your way to persuading the individual to your advantage. The example of seducing the cop showed that by keeping the cop satisfied and by agreeing, the individual will most likely end up getting what he/she wants. In chapter three, I learned that all issues wined down to blame, values, and choice. Blame= past, values= present, and choice= future. I’ve realized that using the future tense in an argument is more successful because it suggests a way to solve a problem. I find this book very interesting so far and the techniques that Heinrichs mentions make complete sense, but I find myself questioning if sometimes the ideas are too manipulative and come off as a way to control someone into getting what you want. For example when Heinrichs says, “Having decided what you want out of an argument, you can determine how your audience must change for you to achieve that goal. Maybe all you need to do is alter a person’s mood, as in, say, seduction” (Heinrichs 21).

persuasion

            After reading the first five chapters of Thank You for Arguing, I found myself starting to think deeper on the meaning of argument and persuasion. Already this book is opening my eyes to new perspectives and techniques on persuasion. I thought it was very interesting in the first chapter that Heinrichs mentioned the inevitability of argument. Everything that one goes through in life is an argument or some sort of persuasion and I had never thought about that before. Before I always thought an argument just pertained to a fight where two or more people are having conflicting views on a topic. But then Heinrichs points out the little arguments such as persuading his son to get him some toothpaste. Although there was never an actual conflict, the situation was still an argument because it all came down to Heinrichs getting what he wants. I also liked the points that one can use ethos, logos, and pathos to help persuade an audience. I had never actually thought of those as being techniques for persuasion. We had discussed in class whether pathos was the easiest or hardest technique of persuasion and I believe that it would be the hardest. I believe this because I think it’s harder to appeal to people’s emotions if you don’t know how they are going to react to a certain situation. You may think they will react one way and not realize that they could react in a totally different way. I think that it’s harder to predict how an audience will feel than to gain credibility or state logical facts. This book definitely has me thinking differently about how to persuade and win arguments.

Prompt: Week 2

For this week's response, please write about something you learned from Thank You For Arguing. Has it changed your perspective in some way? Was there anything that surprised you? Do you look at things differently after this week's class discussions?

Welcome to Rhetoric!

Welcome to our class discussion blog!

This is a space for you to respond to the readings we've done each week, and engage with your peers outside of the classroom environment. You should post at least once per week, so by the end of the semester you should have posted at least 16 times. Don't worry too much about grammar or spelling here. This counts towards your participation grade, so I will be looking at the quality of your ideas, and your engagement with the text, rather than your writing style.

Each week, you should write 250 or so words about anything you found interesting/weird/wrong/right/cool/boring about the reading. However, you must always explain WHY you found the reading interesting/weird/cool/wrong etc.

You can write about anything you've read so far, and I encourage you to make connections with things we've read previously. For example, if you notice something in Chapter 2 that makes a section in Chapter 1 make sense, feel free to tell us! Or if you notice a similarity between one book and another, go for it!

You are free to agree or disagree with your peers, but you should always try to add something new to the discussion. If someone has already said what you wanted to say, try adding to their comment--show us a different quote that also supports that argument, and why you think it supports the comment.

Aside from that, feel free to write anything you like, but be respectful towards your peers. Writing anything offensive towards a group of people, no matter whom, won't be tolerated.