Getting Your Opponent to Agree

                One of the main goals of rhetoric is to get your opponent to agree with your point right from the beginning. The counterpart will most likely have a different proposal, so it is your job to convince him that your ideas give him more benefits. Being advantageous provides the opponent with a choice which is more beneficial for him. It is very interesting to see how rhetoric plays with the selfishness in human nature. Since the only way that someone will agree to a different idea is by showing him that the idea offers him many advantages over the other, rhetoric is a very effective path to make the opponent think that, while in reality that is merely an illusion. One way to induce this illusion is by establishing commonplaces. Clichés can sometimes be monotonous and ineffective, but are other times a good tool to get the counterpart to relate to your idea. The efficient use of clichés can actually make the individual belief in the idea and allows you to establish a common ground in which the debate can take place. On the contrary, if the atmosphere in which the discussion takes place is not familiar to the opponent, then he will take a defensive stance and reject all your propositions.

            In addition, it is crucial to highlight the importance of taking a defined and clear stance toward the topic being discussed. President Obama and Governor Romney establish their positions clearly with regards to the Middle East very often, since it is one of the most controversial topics in the country. This will add credibility to your argument and will give you an edge over your adversary. Sometimes, the best alternative when facts do not work is to “redefine the terms instead. If that won’t work, accept your opponent’s facts and terms but argue that your opponent’s argument is less important than it seems” (p. 109). Always have a counter attack ready if one of your established plans goes wrong. Lastly, I found it very impressive to observe that in most of the techniques described by Heinrichs, the best thing to usually do is to undermine the opponent’s ideas in a subtle way and impose your own not only as the best one, but as the most beneficial one for the opponent, not for you.