"All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible." - Mahatma Gandhi

Speeches are convincing, that's their purpose. A person stands up and talks to others... but all with a sole purpose. This speaker might appear to be altogether selfless and doing it all for his audience. However, this is what he's supposed to do. Otherwise, why would people support him if they feel he's doing it for selfish reasons? They would never favor him, because in the end, everyone runs on selfish ideals. But then, how does the speaker pretend it is not for himself that he is doing it, but for the overall good of everyone? Well, through the use of fallacies, of course! Many speakers use these, and their audiences don't even notice. Among these speakers stands Mahatma Gandhi, who fills his Kingsley speech with fallacies but to a successful extent, as these are quite hard to find.

"Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules," says Gandhi as he begins his speech. It's a long sentence, isn't it? Well yes, long enough to hold two fallacies, even. First of all, it uses hasty generalization, because Gandhi is simply assuming that people don't know about their rulers. He doesn't even explain how he got to this conclusion, and yet, he generalizes on people's view of their rulers. In addition, this is definitely a many questions fallacy. Gandhi is squishing many issues into one: who rulers are, why God rules, and how He rules. He is simply treating all these questions as one, thus making this a fallacy.

Afterwards in his speech, Gandhi explains that what is governing everything "is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern conduct of living being...." But this is a fallacy of ignorance: Just because he has never heard of a blind law being able to govern "conduct of living being" does not mean that this is not possible. Just because his theory isn't disproved, he assumes it's true.

Further on in his speech, Gandhi asks "And is this power benevolent or malevolent?" referring to God's power. However, is it actually either good or bad? Couldn't it be anywhere in between? By ignoring all the other choices, Gandhi is committing a fallacy of false dilemma. He follows this sentence by saying: "I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the mist of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists. Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is supreme Good." This is definitely a wrong ending fallacy because, how does the fact that life, truth and light all persist, make Him benevolent? And how does the fact that He brings these three items automatically turn Him into these three items? Gandhi also out of nowhere adds to more items (love and Good) and pretends that they belong in his conclusion, but in all actuality he just inserted them, applying the wrong ending fallacy. And this "wrong ending" is what ends this entry, hopefully giving it a good ending and demonstrating Gandhi's hidden, ulterior techniques.

"And, after all, what is a lie?" - Lord Byron

After reading chapters sixteen and seventeen I looked through my classmates' blogs as a means of inspiration, since I had no idea what to write of. I then noticed that many, including Daniel Solano's and Lina Merizalde's assessed the importance of identifying that someone had good values and is looking out for our needs. However, all I could think about while reading the chapters was how much I wanted to be as convincing as the salesman mentioned in chapter sixteen. Considering Heinrichs is a rhetorician, he shouldn't be trying to break such a persuasive person. If I were him, I would be complimenting the salesman non-stop. But no: He decides to focus on how the salesman isn't looking out for Heinrich's mom's satisfaction, and even creates an imaginary conversation in which his mom ultimately humiliates the salesman, or at least shuts him up in a rude, uncalled for manner ("If I look at it [the pool table], will you take me to the shirt department (P. 175)?").

Let's face the ugly truth: No one will ever look out solely for your own needs and not his/her own. Yes, not even parents, otherwise they'd give you all their food so only your needs could be fulfilled. So why would a salesman, of all people, want the best for you? Thus when buying something, you shouldn't even ask yourself whether the salesperson is completely disinterested and selfless and only cares about your needs. I mean, why would he? He has his own life to carry out. So why would he put a stranger's over his own? But by all means, this salesman shouldn't be humiliated. It's his duty, for God's sake! And he's doing a great job at it, I must add! He convinced a woman of buying an item that was probably at least four times the price of the one she was originally considering!

So, I don't understand why Heinrichs is focusing this chapter on how not to be like his mom. I mean, you shouldn't have to be taught how to not let people convince you of something you don't want. If you don't want it, you won't buy it. Otherwise, even a small part of you must have wanted it in the first place. Not buying it in the end, consists mainly of a strongly set mind. What Heinrichs decides to teach is simply some extra information that most people won't need if they have enough will power and clarity of what they want. However, I believe that what he should be teaching us, is how to be like that amazing salesman! That guy probably didn't even get education on rhetoric, and yet he is so good at it. So Heinrichs: Don't criticize him, pay tribute to him and teach us how to be that good. Because selling is even harder than saying no, as this video further demonstrates:

*No need to watch the entire thing. With just a minute, you'll get it.

"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.

"Rhetorical Deduction uses a commonplace to reach a conclusion (P. 133)."

As I read Chapter 13 of Thank You for Arguing I began realizing of all the ways we are fooled in our day to day life. Everyone around us uses bad logic, everybody from our parents -  saying "Then if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" - to politicians - "Every American family has to live within their means. Their government should, too (P.122)." And then I realized an example of deductive logic that I, as a girl, see all the time: beauty.

This example is actually made up of two parts. Society begins pushing this rhetorical deduction into girls' heads as off a very young age:
"Women want to be pretty.
You are a woman,
Then you want to be pretty."
Due to this, young girls become concerned with being pretty, because, well, they're "women," so they must be pretty as well... or at least try to be.

This example of deductive logic sets the commonplace for a next situation. It leaves girls vulnerable and makes them easy targets to companies with the objective of making them "pretty."So these companies use the following example of rhetorical deduction:
"If our product makes you pretty,
and you want to be pretty,
then you should buy our product."

This advert is a perfect example:

Although, to be honest, it is one of the most boring advertisements I've ever seen, it does the trick and employs deductive logic. Notice how not a word is said, yet, the message is clear: This product will make you "chic, trendy, glamourous, [and] beautiful." It wants women to say "If this product makes me pretty, and I want to be pretty, then I should buy this product." - well, in a much more thoughtless way like "I want this product."  Interesting how society works hand in hand with the beauty industry. 

Vocabulary

Deduction:  "Deductive logic applies a general principle to a particular matter. Rhetorical deduction uses a commonplace to reach a conclusion, interpreting the circumstances through a lens of beliefs and values (P.133)."

Enthymeme:  "We should [choice], because [commonplace] (P. 133)." 

Induction:  "In rhetoric, induction is argument by example. This kind of logic starts with the specific and moves to the general (P. 133)."

Fact, Comparison, Story:  "These are the three kinds of example to use in inductive logic (P. 133)."

Paradigm: A set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles.

"Commonplaces are powerful weapons. Do not aim them at your foot." (P. 103)

After twelve chapters of Thank You for Arguing, things are beginning to get complicated. It's not because Heinrichs doesn't explain well - He's a great teacher of such a complex subject! It's due to the fact that there are so many ways to win an argument that it begins to get confusing.It's funny how before, I had about three ways to win an argument... and now, there are so many, it's hard to keep track of them. As a result, I decided the best way to keep them all organized im my head is to define them and exemplify them. So what better place to do it than my blog:


The Advantageous (Approach):
"You make the audience believe your own choice to be the advantageous one." (P. 107)

This video is a Samsung Galaxy Ad. However, it starts off seeming like an iPhone ad instead. Due to this, it is a perfect example of the Advantageous approach. It begins by having people in the ad speak highly of the new iPhone release, calling it an event they'll remember for the rest of their lives. However, the Samsung Galaxy is then portrayed as a much better option, saying it is "magnificent"and "amazing." By the end, it is obvious that those in line for the iPhone would much rather have the Galaxy, but they pretend they don't by mocking those who have it or making up lame excuses as to why it's not meant for them ("I could never get a Samsung... I'm creative"), thus adding witty humor to the ad.

This is also an example of Definition Judo ("Make your opponent's most positive words look like negatives" (P. 113)). It uses irony to make the iPhone buyers' positive comments seem negative, thus never directly trashing it. They do this by having the customers say (enthusiastically, though) that they've waited for nine hours and have nine more to go, and that the iPhone has a kind of "retro, old - school style." Although the ad's character say these like they're good things, the ironic tone of the ad-makers is evident, and they succeed in making these iPhone-praising comments seem negative.

The Commonplace: 

"The assumptions and outlook on the world that define an individual." (P.101)

In this video, Obama starts with logos, stating, for example, that when he took office the US was "losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month." By starting with logos, as Heinrichs puts it, Obama makes the audience "think that [his] opinion is a very small step from the commonplace." (P. 107)

After using logos he establishes the commonplace: "get folks back to work," "make the middle class secure again,""create one million manufacturing jobs," "double exports,""tax breaks to invest in America,""produce more American energy," "preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers," "train 2 million Amercians with the job skills they need,""expand student aid,""reduce deficit by $4 trillion,""wealthy pay a little more," and "end Afghanistan war and rebuild America."

By establishing so many commonplace ideas, he is reaching out to the greatest amount of people, establishing it in the broadest context ("one that appeals to the values of the widest audience" (P. 120)). By saying he'll have the wealthy pay a little more, he is getting the consent of the anti-capitalists, yet maintaining that of the rich since it is only a "little more."

The Commonplace Label ( Anyone who opposes [the commonplace] will risk seeming like an outsider" (P. 107)) will certainly apply here as well. Anyone who disagrees with Obama in this video will risk coming across as an unpatriotic American who doesn't care about improving the United States' economy, life conditions, and education.

"An argument rests on what the audience believes. Not on what is true." (P. 74)

People are always thinking about choice that would be convenient to them. Because of this, a person who seems to be interested in others' wellbeing instead of his/her own, stands out and will probably earn more support than one who seeks his/her own wellbeing. It is hard to have no opinion at all concerning a certain situation. So, although your thoughts and decisions will obviously be biased, pretend they're not. For example, the young lady in the picture above seems very concerned with helping the older woman. However, what if this worry is just an act and she is only helping her so that the old lady will give her something in return? Doesn't really look like it, but that's the point: Make your act as believable as possible. 

Jay Heinrichs mentions three tricks in order for your audience believe that you are completely impartial and just pursuing their own interests:

1. "Seem to deal reluctantly with something you are eager to prove." (P. 73)

2. "Act as if the choice you advocate hurts you personally." (P. 74)

3. "Make it seem you have no tricks." (P. 75)

When you act as if you arrived at a decision after giving it much thought, the audience is much more likely to follow your path than if you show that you automatically made a decision. Looking at the choices as if you were unsure of what to decide, and then walking through your thoughts until you reached your final decision is just like leading your audience to your final choice and will most likely work on them.

It is one thing to have the audience believe your decision will not benefit you in any way, but to have them believe it may harm you will make them believe in it even more. In addition, not only will this most likely have them choose your choice, but it may also improve the image they have of you. You are portraying yourself as a completely selfless person, who only cares about the wellbeing of others. Due to this, they may begin to trust you with other decisions. 

Above all, it is imperative that nobody realizes what you're trying to do. Seeming reluctant and acting as if a choice harms you, will most likely hide your motives from your audience. But there is actually a technique that will minimize the notoriousness of your ulterior motives: Act nervous. If the audience thinks you are vulnerable, the idea of you trying to fool them won't even cross their minds. They will also be to busy worried for you and rooting for your success. Just like this, you have set a link in which the audience supports you. 

All of these techniques work. Each one is better under certain circumstances, so by having the three of them, you have the key to success in about every situation. By using them adequately, you'll be soon able to manipulate people and no one will even realize so. 

"That's practical wisdom: Flexibly wise leadership. All great heroes have it." (P. 68)

From a young age, school has taught us all about facts. It doesn't really teach us how to solve real-life problems but rather those in books. Thanks to school, we know all about what happened in World War II, how to replace "x" with a number, etc. This is called being book smart. To be honest, anybody can be book smart. It's simply about knowing facts. However, it is not very often that solving for "x" saves your life. This is where being street smart comes along. Not everybody is street smart, but it may be even more important than being book smart.

Being street smart is being able to make practical decisions. All the knowledge on science, mathematics, history, etc. won't stop you from getting mugged. However, being street smart will help you know that it is better to wear inconspicuous clothing and to keep your phone hidden from sight when walking through a dangerous street. So while being book smart may help you get a job, being street smart will help you live.

Teachers continually say that if you don't get good grades, you won't do very well in life. But there is so much more to life than grades. My uncle, for example, graduated from CNG with the second lowest ICFES score in the grade (the lowest one being his best friend's). With that, one might infer that he went on to become a low-payed employee, because, who would hire someone who got a low ICFES score, right? Well, he went on to become one of the most important architects in Boston. He was nice to people and knew what to do in certain situations, which made them like him and hire him, despite the fact that he didn't have the best grades in school.So there's more to life than factual knowledge.

It is no wonder then that being street smart classifies as part of ethos in rhetoric. Since not everyone can be street smart, people look up to those who can. They trust them, because they seem smarter when it comes to life. Being street smart and rhetoric, I believe, actually go hand in hand. If you're street smart, you can have those who are book smart do what you want them to. And this is rhetoric. So just by acting as if you know how to solve a problem, you'll become a leader, and people will be behind you for guidance, right there where you want them to be.