"Que Sí, Que No, Que Sí, Que No y Punto"

 Stop, stop, stop and stop. After reading chapters 10-12 from Thank You For Arguing I could only think: "wait there a tad Heinrichs, I need some time to digest everything you're saying." I had to control the urge I had to take out my notebook and scribble notes about everything he had to say about rhetoric because my post-its just weren't enough. I knew rhetoric was a complex topic that contained many information, but I never knew it was going to be like this. Fine, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but it is still a lot of information to process. 

Heinrichs talks about this and that, and then this and that, and how you can do this but not that. It is very interesting (not to say useful too), but it's simply too overwhelming to take in all over at once. We were introduced to very handy concepts indeed. I already knew about passive voice, but I learned about facetious humor, wit, urbane humor, banter, backfiring, labeling, The Rejection, The Commonplace Label, The Advantageous,  redefining, babbling, framing amongst others.  

I was rather impressed when Heinrichs mentioned "babbling", which is "when your audience repeats the same thing over and over"(Pg.107). I never knew this silly argumentation technique (that the most pathetic arguers employ) is rather useful. I used to argue with my sister like that when I was younger and she was trying to convince me to wash her dishes, and rather than trying to persuade me or seduce me she just begged me. Clearly that didn't work out very well: 

 Facetious: (Adj.)  treating serious issues
with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Her: Wash my dishes.

Me: Pff, no. 

Her: Why not?

Me: Because I don't want to. 

Her: Why not?

Me: Because I don't feel like doing so.

Her: But why?

Me: I don't want to. I'm busy.

Her: Please? 

Me: No 

Her: Pretty please with a cherry on top? 

Me: No is no. Bye. 

Would she had known about Heinrich's book, she might have tried to persuade me in a different way. When you or your opponent babble, it is most likely that their/you are "probably mouthing a commonplace"(Pg. 107). A commonplace, according to Heinrichs is "the ground the audience currently stands on" (Pg.107), that means the audience's "beliefs and values, the views it holds in common"(Pg.100). Therefore, if my sister would have understood what my commonplace was and tried using it in her favor, she might have won what she wanted. Not even, if she would have offered me a reward I would've washed the dishes happily without having to go through all that rhetoric.

Even though there is too much information and many of it is confusing it is the only way to master rhetoric. I have to suck it up and learn about argumentation methods instead of complaining about being overwhelmed. With only following some of Heinrich's rules one can do wonders to persuade or seduce or people. We can not only win huge and very important arguments, but we can also win little arguments that could give us a night off dishwashing.