"Never Argue the Inarguable (P. 158)."

We use fallacies all the time. Many times we do so unintentionally. Sometimes we don't even realize we're being fallacious, and other times we do and ask ourselves, "What did that reason even have to do with what I was saying?" but walk away content with the fact that our audience didn't notice the lack of relationship between our choice and our proof. However, there are many occasions in which we use these fallacies and we do get caught.

After seeing this, I immediately realized that this would be considered a fallacy. Harry Styles (the boy who answered the question) was probably trying to make a point. However, the lack of connection between the interviewer's question ("Can you walk out on the street and just be yourself?") and Harry's answer ("London's quite big."), is immediately identified by the other band members. Turns out that Harry might be in one of the most popular bands in the world, and he might have the looks, but when it comes to rhetoric, he's not very good (as far as this video is concerned).

At least he tried, though. Because in rhetoric, what's even worse than being caught in your own fallacy, is completely disturbing rhetoric: The Rhetorical Fouls. There are seven ways to completely impede an argument - not settle it, but block it. When one of these occurs, the argument reaches a dead end: You have killed it. These are the following:

- "Switching tenses away from the future (P. 170)" By using present or past tense, you're portraying the argument as something that simply is that way and can't be changed. Thus, there isnothing more to argue because the present and past are real and inarguable.

- "Inflexible insistence on the rules - using the voice of God, sticking to your guns, refusing to hear the other side (P. 170)" Heinrich's explanation speaks for itself. 

- "Humiliation - an argument that sets out only to debate someone, not to make a choice (P. 170)." Instead of trying to argue with somebody and convince him or your audience, you only attack him and/or his values, putting a stop to rhetoric and the argument. 

- "Innuendo (P. 170)."It completely stops the argument because if your opponent objects to what you said he "can look like a fool (P. 167)."

- "Threats (P. 170)." Giving no choices, but forcing an opinion on somebody instead. I can relate it the most to angry parents: "You will come and you will be nice about it!" There's nothing to argue there: I either do what they say or we get into a fight (remember that there's a big difference between a fight and an argument.)

- "Nasty language or signs... (P. 170)" Self - explanatory.

- "Utter stupidity (P. 170)." Have you ever argued with somebody that's so ignorant that  it seems like he wins, but only because he just denies everything you say?  He's simply halting an argument, bcause you will eventually get bored of comebacks like "Well, no!" or "That's not true," (or commonly in Spanish: "Claro que no!") that contain no further justification. But what when both people are equally ignorant? Then it just becomes an annoying, pointless set of ongoing "No!" "Yes" "No!" "Yes!".... ("Claro que no!" "Claro que si!"....). This type usually goes on between toddlers and siblings. Don't stoop to the rhetorical level of a two - year old.