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).