"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.

The Nitty Gritty

Chapters 7-9 from Thank You For Arguing gave me  the specific tools to improve my discussion methods. The last chapter dealt in most part with how to channel emotions such as anger, and how to play with them. I can control and use my own emotions, and my audience's emotions to help me convince them. If I am clever enough, this book will provide me with enough tools to hide beneath my sleeve. It might make me win each and every argument I have convincing people of what I want or believe in. 

One of the first things I now know I have to change is my emotions. I have had that clear since I read the first chapter of this book, however Heinrichs hadn't gotten into real detail about what to do about channeling my emotions. He says that "A persuader who apparently struggles to hold back her emotions will get better results than one who displays her emotions all over the floor of a bank" (Pg. 82) . Yeah, oops. I was the out of control, crying girl when I was younger and argued with my older sister every time. Had I known this information I might have won twice the arguments I got into. I used to cry when I got mad, or got too sentimental.

(n.) A clumsy repairer or worker; a meddler. (Pg. 68)

I recall one fight I had with my sister about who could get to sleep with our dog that night. I was already angry at her for not letting me be with het too as she would spend the whole afternoon locked inside of her room, and not let me get near it. Therefore, I decided to start an argument because I knew I owned the right to spend some time with the dog too. I was still very young and naive, while she was older and more knowledgable in the art of manipulation. I tried being all fancy and trying to negotiate a deal with her, but I failed humiliatingly and proceeded to get very sentimental and angry. Now I realize I could have done things differently, and I know I won't "use fancy language when [I] get emotional" (Pg. 90), because i'll end up losing.

Furthermore, the funniest and most realistic to use was the personal sacrifice. In some sort of way I have already employed this technique though in a more rudimentary and obvious manner. I tried persuading my sister by giving her pity of myself, I placed myself in the "poor puppy" situation, doing the doggy eyes as well. Though I failed because my sister is hard as a rock, it could have worked in another person. Now that I know how to elaborate this tool more throughly I know how to influence my sister into giving me the dog, or manipulating anyone in a different situation. 

Ditto

After reading chapters 5 and 6 from Thank you for Arguing I started to realize that the fact of fitting in is not always such a bad thing, and that it is a broader topic than what I thought. My opinions on the concept of fitting in connotes negativity to me. I have seen it as teenagers changing their looks to be liked by their classmates, and nothing else. I've always seen people suffer by trying to change who they are, and in what they believe only to be accepted by others and not have to feel being left behind. 

This concept of being "cool" and "uncool" has never been of my likeness, but now these chapters have opened my eyes. Now I see two things: one is that decorum or the propriety and good taste in conduct or appearance, is not always bad and second that fitting in and decorum though they might be similar are not always the same thing. Decorum, or also known as etiquette is also part of our everyday lives even though many people connote etiquette only to wearing fancy dresses and having elegant manners in a party. The same thing goes for fitting in. Though many people, such as me attribute it solely to high school teenagers, it is used in a variety of occasions as well. 

 

Decorum is used in every event, as you cannot walk into the grammy's wearing jeans, or into a catholic church wearing only a swimsuit, you would be stared weirdly if you walked into school wearing a tux. It is plainly weird and wrong. Likewise, Heinrichs says that to have decorum you have to "act the way your audience expects you to act - not necessarily like your audience" (pg. 69). This means that you don't have to mimic what everyone is doing, but rather do as people expect you to act. Here is when I realized decorum and fitting in were just a tad different. Nonetheless, Justin Bieber came to Bogotá, Colombia not more than a week ago, and ever since there has been news about him everyday, because he vandalized a street with graffiti. Many Colombians are furious, and it's one big of a scandal. Justin didn't act the way he was supposed to act, but rather defied his audiencewhich therefore led him into trouble. Would've Justin graffitied in another place, or someplace were it was not illegal and he had permission and not in a public street, things might have been different. 

As said in the book, decorum "has to do with the ability to match the audience's beliefs" (Pg. 59), and it "follows the audience's rules"(Pg. 70). The problem is that Justin didn't do that and that's why there is so much controversy about his graffiti. He didn't do what he was supposed to do, but rather did something that made his audience react negatively. Consequently, I believe this exhibits the importance of decorum not only in real life but in arguments too because without it not only it might turn out of hand and become a fight, but you might also fail to convince your audience of anything. 

Wrong Wrong and Wrong

Oops. I have never realized how wrong I was all along. It was enough just to read the first page of Thank You For Arguing by Jay Heinrichs to make me realize how many of my arguments are pathetic, to say the least. I don't know how to truly argue, which is why I think this book is going to be a great way to teach me new things, and mostly to help me win more arguments in the future.

After pondering back in time and thinking on my past arguments, I found that either I defend myself and prove my point quite well, or I get too sentimental and sadly spoil my point of view, and lose: Oops. Rather than trying to "Stimulate my audience's emotions. Change its opinions. Get it to act" (Pg.22).  I many times overwhelm them with emotion, such as anger, or try to shove my opinions down their throats rather than trying to discretely convince them. Oops again, this is strike one. 

As I said before my feelings many times get in the middle of my argument, many times turning it into a fight. I recall my uncountable discussions with my sister that morphed into fights. Nonetheless, this used to happen when I was much younger and as she is four years older than me, she possessed a great advantage over myself. She always knew best and knew more than me. She had the best comebacks, which made me furious because I thought it was very unfair. I felt that just because I was younger It didn't mean I was stupider, so I used to get very any at her snappy comebacks and "I know everything 'cause I’m older" attitude. Afterwards, no matter what we had been arguing about, I started to cry out of anger. I didn’t start sobbing, tears simply started pouring out of my eyes and there was no way I could control it. Nowadays, though its not as exaggerated I tend to have the same reaction when I get really mad in an argument. I start crying, and it’s horrible.

Strike two, and strike three. I’m out. I really need to learn how to control myself in many situations and learn to truly persuade people without my feelings getting in the way. I failed in my methods once again. I need to learn how to differentiate an argument from a fight too. All of this makes me love the book even more, and is the reason why I think this book is going to become my new best friend. It will turn me into a master of persuasion.

Life Skills