Do Not Treat the Audience as Babies

                Truly getting into the heart of logos in chapter 13, it is very interesting to observe how the use of syllogisms can influence the argument. First and foremost, it is crucial that the audience understands the logic you are using and gets to the conclusion that you want them to. If not, you just wasted valuable time on invaluable persuasion. However, people will not be easily convinced if they think they are being manipulated in some way to agree with the idea that you propose. This is where enthymemes are extremely useful. They provide a type of syllogism that uses the same logic but skips the middle portion of it, which is unnecessary. It is best to use enthymemes with commonplaces because that guarantees you that the audience will comprehend the evidence and feel attached to the situation and the objective. A very important part when prooving a premise is showing examples. This method of using examples to evidence a point is called a paradigm. This influences the choice you want the audience to make. This evidence will also act as the premise, which is key to make your point valid and show the reader that it does work. Heinrichs describes this when he states, “It starts with a premise--a fact or commonplace--and applies it to a specific case to reach a conclusion” (p. 125). Once the audience believes the premise and reaches the conclusion, they will be easily persuaded.

            I found it very impressive that logic also involves using a lot of facts. However, the important part is not only gathering and knowing the information, but knowing how to effectively use it to convey the message. Presenting facts or comparisons to the audience, you add power to the premise, therefore guiding the audience through the path to reach the desired conclusion. If the audience knows that your ideas are not only backed-up by your point of view, but by several others, then the argument becomes much more powerful and convincing. I know there are some people who believe everything you tell tell, but it is better to be prepared for the more intelligent ones. At first the audience might be thinking: "Why is he teeling me this?" but soon after they might be asking themnselves, "Why did I just believe him and felt his point was the right one?" Using deductive or inductive logic will allow you to present commonplaces or examples that add profoundness and make the audience feel identified with your goal. Actually, it might even modify their identity in the long run. All of it because of you.

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.     

Done With Ethos, Now Pathos

                After having thoroughly described how to manipulate ethos and the marvelous effects this can have on the audience, it is crucial to remember that pathos is another very important mode of rhetoric that complements ethos in an argument. Arguing is not only about establishing a clear character and using logic to persuade the audience. Sometimes this is not enough. The effective appeal to the emotions and feelings of the audience creates a strong connection between you and them. This connection will allow you to dominate their feelings and make them work towards what you want them to. A very efficient way to change the mood in an argument is by telling an anecdote. As Heinrichs says, “The more vivid you make the story, the more it seems like a real experience, and the more your audience will think it could happen again” (p. 81). The power of a detailed narrative is very impressive. It can manipulate the emotions of the audience almost instantly.

            It is the audience’s job to figure out the feelings being evoked and the emotions present in the argument, not yours. Therefore, you should not exaggerate the feelings you want to evoke. If you demonstrate or indirectly tell the audience which emotions you are trying to manipulate, they will acquire a preventive attitude and will let themselves be manipulated by you. On the other hand, by speaking in a simple manner and hiding your real intentions, you can trick the audience and manipulate pathos effectively. I found it very interesting to realize that stimulating anger in the audience is the best way to manipulate pathos. Heinrichs depicts that “the easiest way to manipulate anger…is to belittle that desire” (p. 86). Once you get the audience to be angry, then it is much easier for you not only to persuade them, but to make them commit to your ideas. I believed that infuriating the audience was a very bad idea, since they would not be very receptive to new ideas; however, if you use that anger correctly, the audience becomes vulnerable and will accept any way you propose to achieve your desire.  

Acting As the Victim

            It is not always the best idea to highlight your strengths and brag about them. Especially when you are appealing to your audience to make them do something for you, a different approach may be the most appropriate to persuade them. Pretending to be the victim in the scene is certainly very useful, since you appear to be the one hurt if the counterpart takes the wrong decision. It takes all the eagerness and the anxiousness one has to convey his message and prove his point and turns it into a seemingly disinterested argument. Heinrichs describes this very effectively when he states, “Seem to deal reluctantly with something you are really eager to prove” (p. 73). This makes the audience sympathize with you and probably try to help you in your case. This technique made me reflect upon several experiences in which I have tried by all means to persuade an individual of sharing my position in a certain topic and could not accomplish my task. However, when I was about to quit and began to stop insisting so much, the individual suddenly decided to share my perspective.

            Innocence is crucial for the audience to trust you. I found it very interesting to observe the influence an appearance of innocence has on the audience. I would have expected the audience to be happy with a very knowledgeable person who shows his intelligence right from the beginning of the argument. However appearing as an innocent person who is simply the victim of anxiousness adds credibility and honesty to the argument, which most people value. In addition, Heinrichs depicts a very important technique one should consider: “Make it seem you have no tricks” (p. 75). The audience will start the discussion with a very cautious approach to the ideas one presents. It is the arguer’s objective to make the audience sympathize with him and make them change their approach to a more open and trusting one. Once this has been accomplished, one can begin manipulating pathos, logos, and ethos to persuade them of committing to a certain idea and doing what is desired. Winning their trust first is essential to achieve the final goal.

    

If You Can’t Beat Your Enemy, Join Him

            One of the most important aspects to consider when arguing in making the audience relate to you. One very clever way you can do this is by understanding the concept of virtue and how to effectively use it. When highlighting the virtues you have, it is key that “the audience believes you share their values” (p.56). Virtue can vary a lot depending of the context in which the argument is taking place and who specifically is the audience. In order to be effective in sympathizing with the audience, they need to think you have the appropriate values and then they will begin to accept the proposed idea. I found this very interesting, since I recall that people almost always think that what they think is right, so one of the best ways to make them believe you have the appropriate values is by acting as if you shared common values with them.

                Another point that really shocked me was when Heinrichs discusses the effectiveness of tactical flaws in rhetoric arguing. I thought that explicitly showing your flaws was one of the worst things one could do, since the opponent would immediately start taking advantage of them. However, some tactical flaws are very useful, since they demonstrate that one has been completely dedicated and committed to the audience’s values, which should appear as common values. Another controversial technique Heinrichs mentions is that when the opponent comes with new pieces of good evidence or you feel that the argument is being won by the counterpart, you should change the position for which you stand in a subtle manner. I would argue that some of the greatest leaders and mass manipulators have been successful in achieving their objectives by standing the whole way by their initial values and perspective. But apparently, “those who stick to your former opinion in the face of such overwhelming reasons aren’t, well, reasonable” (p.64). Therefore, making this transition can save you from losing the argument. Although these techniques seem like if you were playing dirty, they are really manipulating the audience to transform your image into what they seek in the person, making you their idol.

Rhetoric: A Presidential Weapon

            President Obama and Governor Romney had their last debate tonight very close to the presidential elections in the United States. Both of them had to take their best arguments and make the people believe in them and give them their vote of confidence for such a crucial position. It is impressive how President Obama used logos to counterattack Governor Romney’s argument about the military budget. He declared that the United States was currently spending more on its military than the next ten countries in the top spending list combined. Therefore, it is not necessary to spend more on the military since it is not asking for more and this would also mean taking away an important amount of the money used for education and other vital services. Romney’s effective use of deliberate arguments is truly impressive. He provided the people of the United States with two choices: either to continue killing terrorists and members of extreme groups who continuously kill Americans or citizens of allied countries, or device an effective plan for the future in which further action is taken and leadership is demonstrated by the United States in order to prevent more damage to be done to the country’s citizens. On this same topic, Governor Romney also uses pathos when he describes why terrorists need to be killed. He reminds the horrible events that have occurred because of extremist actions by these groups and recalls the tragedy of September 11, appealing to the emotions of most Americans who feel that that has been one of the worst calamities that has taken place on their soil.

            Presenting an argument for the topic of education and its urgent need of improvement, Governor Romney does a very effective job in terms of demonstrative rhetoric. This can be seen when he says that the only way for the country to expect future entrepreneurs that take the initiative to create businesses is to have a good education system. He made it clear that he felt one of the most important things in a young child’s life was to receive high quality education and the state which he is governing has been ranked first out of the fifty states in the fourth and eighth grades in math and science. On the other hand, President Obama uses ethos very well, since he positions himself as the current Commander in Chief and makes it clear that he is very knowledgeable in the military area, one of Romney’s most vigorous arguments. This forms a character by which Obama stands by and supposedly will live up to. Also, President Obama makes excellent use of forensic arguing, since he blames Governor Romney several times of having proposed an erroneous point of view or idea. It is impressive to see the way in which it is not only important to have good information and a good argument, but to be able to express it in a way that is effective and that persuades the audience and makes them want to follow ones ideas.   

Persuasion: An Everyday Activity

            We think of persuasion as a very complex quality that only a few select individuals can achieve. In fact, persuasion is used by most people in their everyday lives. Although they do not necessarily notice it, they are using pathos, logos, and ethos to convince another individual. These are the three big modes of rhetoric first introduced by Aristotle. I found it very interesting to observe that logic is not the main path to persuade or win an argument, since people can defend themselves if they really dominate the topic. On the other hand, imposing a dominant image of you (ethos) and presenting yourself with a strong character sets an image that is crucial for arguing. Also, using pathos, or appealing to the emotions of the other part can allow you to make valuable connections that make the other reflect upon the point and eventually change his mind. Heinrichs uses one example throughout most of the chapter which at first seems to be a simple discussion about a simple issue. But that is only what is happening superficially. The way in which the author is able to break up the argument into the different modes of rhetoric amazed me. Even a young child can begin to use advanced persuasive techniques to convince his parents of a certain desire.

                Getting angry is the worst thing one can do in an argument. It is commonly thought that an angry person will dominate the conversation. This might be true in terms of voice loudness and rudeness, but not in the case of persuading. Keeping calm and making your opponent sympathize with you will give you a huge advantage in your argument. Heinrichs depicts a crucial idea when he declares, “Cicero hinted that the great orator transforms himself into an emotional role model, showing the audience how it should feel” (p. 43). One of the most important aspects of arguing is achieving the audience’s sympathy towards you and your idea. If the audience, in some cases only your opponent feels related or begins to acknowledge the idea, then there has been an effective use of pathos. Sometimes, conceding a few points to the counterpart is useful to make them feel comfortable and think that they are doing a good job in getting their point across, which they really are not. I was surprised to realize that the best arguments won are those that do not feel like intense arguments, which can start even with friends. Once the idea of an argument is induced in the opponent’s mind, he will lift up his guard and begin to attack you. Instead of attacking back, one should try to make the other individual accept your idea and not only acknowledge that it is a good one, but be so into it that he has a desire to implement it. This seems like a win-win situation but it is actually a complete win for the rhetorician.