Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion

Rhetorical argument is different “from the blame-shifting, he-said-she-said squabbling that defines conflict today” (15). A successful fight is when someone dominates their enemy; humans fight to win. In contrast, an argument, when done skillfully, persuades an audience to change their mood, mind, or willingness to do.

Heinrichs presents two tools to shape the outcome of an argument—the first being to set a personal goal. The persuader needs to determine what they want at the end of their argument. To achieve this goal, the persuader sometimes needs to concede points. For example, if a coworker says the persuader’s idea will never work, the persuader should agree that it might not work. Then, they should use the coworker’s “win” to get their way (i.e., make the coworker think the original idea was their idea in the first place). This rhetorical jujitsu uses “your opponent’s point to get what you want” (21), enabling one to ultimately win the argument.

The second tool is to set a goal for one’s audience depending on whether one wants to change their mood, mind, or willingness to carry out specific actions. Heinrichs notes that changing an audience’s mood is the easiest goal. St. Augustine (c. 354-430 AD), a philosopher, theologian, and one of the fathers of the Christian Church, successfully used emotion in his sermons (i.e., making people cry) to convert hundreds of pagans to Christianity. Changing an audience’s mood makes them more willing to listen to one’s argument; changing an audience’s mind is more difficult to achieve. A classic persuasive method that can help in this goal is framing the answer, choice, or decision one wants their opponent to reach between extremes. Retailers and politicians often use this tactic. The most difficult goal is getting an audience to act on a new, revived, or revised opinion. Compared to the other two goals, this goal requires using desire to convince an audience that a given action is “no big deal” (23). 

Before an argument, the speaker needs to determine the issue at hand. There are three core issues from which to pick: blame, values, and choice. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, created a form of rhetoric for each issue. The first category of rhetorical persuasion is forensic or legal rhetoric—arguments that focus on assigning blame to other agents and past issues of justice. This argument form “helps us determine whodunit, not who’s-doing it or who-will-do-it” (27).

Demonstrative rhetoric is the second category of rhetorical persuasion. This category of argument uses present tense and “is the communal language of commencement addresses, funeral orations, and sermons. It celebrates heroes or condemns a common enemy. It gives people a sort of tribal identity” (27). Politicians are especially effective at using demonstrative rhetoric to stir their supporters.

Deliberative rhetoric is Aristotle’s third and final form of rhetorical persuasion. It focuses on choices and helps determine how to meet mutual goals. Because it disregards values (i.e., good and bad, right and wrong), Heinrichs considers it the most pragmatic type of rhetoric. Deliberative argument does not help audiences find an elusive truth, but instead helps them weigh one choice against another.

Heinrichs closes the chapter by noting that many arguments end in accusations and name-calling because they are executed in the wrong tense. Choosing the right tense is the most important decision in any given argument.

Aristotle invented three “megatools of rhetoric” (44): logos, ethos, and pathos. These tools allow for the construction of arguments.

Logos is an argument that employs logic. While logos may involve following the rules of logic, it is a set of techniques that ultimately appeals to the audience’s rationality. The most powerful logos tool is concession. The trick of concession is that every point has a flip side; a persuader can use their opponent’s point to their advantage. Heinrichs illustrates this with an excerpt from the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. Calvin’s father tries to teach him how to ride a bike, stating “Look, Calvin. You’ve got to relax a little. Your balance will be better if you’re loose” (40). Calvin agrees and exclaims, “I can’t help it” (40). He then states “Imminent death makes me tense. I admit it!” (40). Calvin gains control of the argument by agreeing that he is tense—and then shifting the issue from his nerves to peril (an objective, stronger argument). With concession, persuaders can argue without appearing to do so. Acting agreeable removes anger from the equation, shifting a potential fight to an argument.

Pathos is an argument that employs emotion. Genuine emotion helps convince people to act on an issue. The most powerful pathos tool is sympathy (i.e., mirroring a listener’s grief). By using rhetorical sympathy, the persuader shows care and concern. The persuader can then change the mood to suit their argument. According to Cicero, a Roman statesman and philosopher, a “great orator transforms himself into an emotional role model, showing the audience how it should feel” (43).

Ethos is an argument that employs character. This tool (deemed the most important by Aristotle) uses the persuader’s ability, personality, and reputation to appear trustworthy to their audience. An audience is more likely to accept a persuader’s argument if they believe the persuader is trustworthy. In other words, character is more important to an audience than words.