Always Act Normal

Acting natural is the key for being a good persuader. Giving the audience confidence while arguing is very important.

Acting as a normal person and speaking normally is fundamental. Starting an argument with a very calm voice and throughout the argument gain some power and volume is something I learned in this chapter.

According to Aristotle, it is very important to be disinterested while arguing. Lets have a hypothetical situation in which I want to go to a party. Convincing my parents is very difficult because this party is for grownups. According to Heinrichs, the thing I must do to convince my parents is show some disinterest. For example, “mom, this weekend I have a party, but I am not willing to go. I will stay sometime in my house, doing homework and being alone, while my friends are having lots of fun! I am very responsible.” After this my parents will feel sorry about my situation therefore they will give me permission.

Surprising the audience is very important. Starting an argument very discrete and talking honest gains attention. According to the Spaniard, Quintilian “a speaker might choose [to pretend to be] uncertain [and this] will make him appear [as an] honest man” (75). As part of the audience I prefer a man that is honest than one that is always talking according to theory. Here is a simpler way to understand it: “don’t be tricky, seem to be in doubt about what to say” (75). This technique is called dubitation.

Dubitation has a lot of power while convincing. Using this theory may help a lot speakers, leaving them with an advantage over their opponent. Ethos plays a very important roll in an argument. Your character is the key for convincing the audience that you are right. Being secure about what you are saying helps your argument making it strong. The personality is very important, Heirichs says that “in an argument, you don’t rest on your personality and reputation, you perform them” (77).  At the end having an argument is like acting a scene, where the best “actor” will be the one that convinces the audience that their point is the right one.

 In Quintilian's I didn’t understand the word feign.

Feign: (verb) to pretend or to be affected by.

Three Tricks!

When persuading one have to have in mind three things: one has to “show off experience, bend the rules, and appear to take the middle course” (71). These three things convince the audience very easily.

Lets say we are debating about Inca’s temples and about their importance. My opponent starts attacking and contradicting my point of view. I let him argue until I have my word. I start telling him some facts, at the end this facts will help me win the argument. The audience will be more convinced on the things I say because I was there three years ago and I lived all this experiences and visited all the temples. At the end “in an argument, experiences usually trumps book learning, [therefore] brag about experiences, rather than yourself” (68).

Bending the rules is also a very important point in a debate. The example used by the book is very good. Some parents are arguing in weather the kid should sleep in his bed or not. The mother refers to a book about how to take care of children. Following exactly what the book says is not a good idea in this situation. Both parents at the end decide to do as they want, the book may have a good point but at the end they both agree in ignoring the fact of the book, but still they continue to follow the rule indirectly.  As Heinrichs says, “if the rules don’t apply, don’t apply them- unless ignoring the rules violates the audience’s values” (68).

While arguing is  very important to give some point to your opponent. For example, lets say I am arguing with my parents about the time I should get home after a party. They say I should be at home by 1:00 but I insist that they let me until 3:00. I give my arguments that defend my point as well as my parents. At the end I am tired of arguing and they are getting mad so we get to an agreement that I should arrive at 2:00. At the end of this argument we both win. Each of us gave some points to each other while arguing and each of us ended satisfied with the final solution. Human kind has this ability, when they are struggling with something to make it easier“[they] prefer a decision that lies midway between extremes” (69).  

The Magic of Persuasion!

There are three parts of ethos that play an important role while arguing. These are: the virtue, the practical wisdom and the selflessness or disinterest. While arguing one must apply these three tactics to be a good persuasive person.

After reading I realized that must if us use all these tactics in an argument. We use different tactics and tones of voice depending of the person we are addressing. When talking to a person that we admire we most of the times try to brag them and say good things about them. When talking to a teacher about the incredible academic achievement we’ve done we brag about ourselves saying good things. If while giving an argument we realize we are wrong we immediately change of topic and finish the argument by agreeing with our opponent. All of this things are related to ethos, we use them every day without noticing all the rhetoric it has behind.

While arguing, the only thing that concerns ourselves is the “audience’s interest” (56). Here, without noticing we are using one of the “three essential qualities of persuasive ethos” created by Aristotle. If the person with whom we are arguing is not concentrated in our point, then we just stop arguing and leave the topic behind. However, if we see that our opponent is interested with what we are saying then we continue arguing until we get to a point.

Getting to an agreement is the end for all discussions. If one is bored of arguing and wants the argument to come to an end then you just agree with your opponent. This happens to me a lot. For example lets pretend two students are arguing. One is CNG student and the other one is a student from Anglo Colombiano. They are arguing about which school is better. They may refer to the national rankings, in which our school is probably in the top eighty, while the Anglo must be in the top fifties. This is a very bad idea. Both persons wiil say good things about each school and will probably have evidence that supports their point. However they are not going to change their point of view because they love their school equally, therefore arguing about this topic will be irrelevant, for this reason the argument will probably arrive to an end.

In this situation the virtue is present, both persons know that both of them share the same values, however their opinions are different. The audience while be persuaded with the student that shows more knowledge toward the topic and with the one that demonstrates their ability to stand out without mattering the situation. Here is where ethos stands, character!

Without noticing we are using modes of rhetoric everyday!

Romney vs. Obama

Throughout the debate both candidates applied Aristotle’s techniques of logos pathos and ethos. Romney was constantly referring to statistics to defend his point. Logos currently lead to pathos.

Talking about Syria was one of the main points in this debate. Romney talked about 30,000 people injured in this big conflict. Obama said this was “heart breaking.” Here Obama is manipulating the minds of the audience making them think in this enormous tragedy.

Obama is constantly referring to the past. He talks about the things done during his presidential period. He makes all his points forensic. Obama talks about the measures taken in the part of education. He has created thousands of schools and done “good things” for citizens. However in the other hand Romney criticize his point by giving statistics that will eventually manipulate the audience and make them take his side.

Romney is constantly giving choices and measures that should be made for the country to succeed. He talks in a deliberative way, making the audience believe in his concerns. Five of his main points are:

1.    Make the United States and independent country in resources, such as oil, gas etc.
2.    Increase the trade.
3.   Train the teachers and scholars for a better future.
4.    Balance the budget
5.    Increase the military forces.

These five choices for the future are the basis for his campaign. During the debate he currently refers to these five concerns and each time reinforcing his proposals.

The mediator is concerned in how is Romney going to manage the increase in military force. From where is he going to get all this money?

Romney defends himself very good. He gives abundance of statistics that convince the mediator and makes him continue the debate.

Obama’s concern for the women is present. He is aware of the rights of women in the Middle East and with pathos he is able to manipulate the audience. He talks about the role of women, and how is a very important part of society. He talks about the measures he will take to improve the quality of life.

Obama is frequently referring to the past speeches of Romney and how throughout time he contradicts himself. While showing how this happens he shows his character and how this should not be done, here is were ethos stand. Obama manipulates the audience giving this argument.

When talking about  Osama bin Laden and the 911, Obama tells a story about a girl that calls his father just before the big catastrophe. Using pathos to make the audience feel sad about this specific moment, he manipulates the audience and make them continue by his side, fighting against Afganistan, Israel, al- Qaeda etc.

Both candidates are aware on the leadership needed in these big conflicts of the United States. They are sure of what they need for the proposals to convince the citizens to vote for them. Here is where Obama refers to his presidential period and talks about the things he made, they are made with “force of moderation” like this violence is “moderated”.

According to Obama “America must be strong.” This big nation is the one that “leads” the world of market business etc. All the countries look to the US as a role model, they should improve various of the sectors for it to succeed. He says that “America remains number one indispensible nation,” this country is indispensible in all sectors. If the market falls, all the world’s market will be affected. This is why the US has such a big responsibility.

During the debate topics such as relations with China, trade, education, military, security, and future proposals for the nation to develop are discussed. During this discussions the rhetoric modes and argument tools are used to manipulate the audience and to convince the citizens to vote for them. 

ETHOS, LOGOS, PATHOS- Aristotle's Creation

I was right. Heinrichs is now discussing the three modes of rhetoric.

Logos, Pathos and Ethos are very important while arguing. There are they key words for each of the modes. For logos, “concession,” (45) one should use the opponent’s argument to find an advantage that will help you convince them. For pathos “sympathy,” (45) one should adapt to the audience emotion like this at the end one can use this emotion to “suit your argument” (45). And last for ethos, one should “argue with character,” (45) this is the most important part of the argument. One should own what your speaking like this the audience and opponent will respect your point.

Having this three modes of rhetoric in the argument is very important. To find an agreement one should manipulate the opponents mind like this at the end they will agree. While arguing the opponent can win some point as well. Giving them sometimes the reason of what they are talking is also good. When the opponent find him\herself in a comfortable environment that permits them share their knowledge and thinking, they are more likely to change their mind in the future.

To manipulate it is very important to use logic, emotion, and character. When the opponent find himself in a situation where all this forms are established it is more likely for them to agree. The example that Heinrichs uses is very useful. This situation if the little kind is very simple but it works perfectly. When the little boy notices that from al the possible sides his point will be attacked he prefers to wear pants rather than continuing with the discussion. His father manipulates his mind and convinces him that using shorts for school is illogic. With this example Heinrichs proofs the reader how to use the modes of rhetoric to manipulate the opponents mind, and to finally arrive to a logic agreement.  

Mood and Mind! The Key

Argue.  Society does this frequently. Most of the people have no idea of how to do it, and what tricks and tips they should use.

In this chapter Heinrichs talks on how to “distinguish an argument [to] a fight” (15).  Before reading this chapter I thought that between arguing and fighting there was a no difference. This is a thing most of the human kind think, which is wrong.  

It is very different to have a fight than to have an argument, “you fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement” (17). Most of the time when two people don’t agree in some conflict they start to argue on who is right. After giving certain arguments they end up shouting at each other and leading themselves to a fight. This is something Heinrichs writes about. To win the argument one should manipulate the opponent’s feelings and thoughts. Most of the time the opponent has very unclear the concept of rhetoric, therefore you can manipulate him/her without them even noticing.

When arguing one should have clear what they want to do with their opponent. Do they want to “change their mood, their mind, or their willingness to carry out what you want?” (26). When having this clear one can start convincing the opponent, that what they are thinking is wrong, however what you think is right.

Knowing how to argue can safe a lot of problems. Being good at this is very important. Wining an argument can get people out of the way quicker. Some people know how to argue naturally, for those who don’t they should learn. When you are good at this you can manipulate people’s mind, making them think like you and do the things you want them to do. If you are good at this you can manipulate your opponent’s mind without them even noticing.

Arguing includes all the modes of rhetoric. You unconsciously apply all of them during your personal “battle”. You manipulate the opponents mind with logos; feelings with pathos and you convince the opponent with ethos. Throughout the book Heinrichs will specify and give tips for each mode.

I thought this was no big deal, but like everything in life, this has its tricks and tips that help you manipulate making you get what you want. 

Happiness, is Everything in life!

Living in a perfect world and not being part of it? Sound confusing but this is the truth of Malika’s life. I feel indentified with the love she feels toward her mother. What a torture separating each other. I imagine myself in her position and shivers come to my body.

In the book Stolen Lives we can see how money and luxury is not everything. Having everything possible in the world and living like a princess is horrible after being deprived of seeing her mother.

In the past, the arrogance of a king and his selfishness could ruin an inocent girl’s life. Malika’s life was perfect before that day. The day were the King had the wonderful idea of adopting her and separating her from her mother, “tearing me away form [her] mother meant tearing [her] away from life.” (20) This quote left me heartbroken. My mom is everything to me, all of my personality is like hers, the way I think is like her; everything inside me is identical to her. Young girls need the influence from their mother when growing up. They are the ones that form our personality and make us do the things we do.  The absence of this influence can be reflected in the future as a bad thing.

Having inner happiness is the essential thing for life. Malika’s depression is becoming the main point of the book, “I saw the live of others, real life, through the windows of the magnificent cars that drove us from one place to another.”(21) She considers herself in a fake world that “belonged to another century, another mentality, other customs. (21)

The writer way of writing makes the reader feel connected with what he is writing. Her tone is suspensive making the reader intrigue with what will happen, “next was a blur in my mind, as if I were the victim of a kidnapping.” (20) With this the author is manipulating the reader’s mind and making us feel interested with the book.

Descriptivist vs. Prescriptivist

http://englishharmony.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/respect-your-native-language.jpg

Have you ever wonder how our language would be if there were no rules placed? This is a big question. But, thanks to the prescriptivism we have some rules in our language that guide us while writing. In the other hand descriptivist stand, this camp goes with the theory that it doesn’t matter how English is used as long as people can communicate.

Throughout the article there are three points of view clearly explained. The first one written by Bryan A. Garner defends the camp of descriptivist and argues how society’s misunderstanding in this field, when saying that “no real-world descriptivist still accept that a native speaker cant make a mistake. This is thoroughly wrong-headed dogma that took many years to debunk- and still it persists.” Society thinks that descriptivist is based in the idea that natives don’t make mistakes, according to Garner this is wrong, all nations have ignorant people that generalize, so, during his part he defends the descriptivist and states the good part of being one of them.

Robert Lane Greene stands with the position that there should be a balance between the two camps, writers’ should be ‘prescriptive descriptivist’. He clearly states that he goes against errors, “native Americans don’t make mistakes [they just] contribute to their one idiolect.” I disagree with Greene idea because if language included both camps that he states then everybody could enforce laws of writing thus our language will become a disaster.

During this article the writers use the rhetoric mode of logos to manipulate the readers mind. They are constantly referring to antique texts that re-enforce what they are explaining. For example, Garner quotes, Ellsworth Barnard, Lars- Grunnar Andersson and Peter Trudgill, words that help him state that his point is correct, and with this convince the reader to believe what he is writing, always defending descriptivist.

These writers “brain wash” the readers mind by telling them which camp they should follow, with this having a better development of society’s language.