“Thank you for Arguing” Outline
Introduction
I. Rhetoric A. “Art of Persuasion” (Preface) B. Few colleges and universities still teach it C. Romans using “the first infomercial tactic” – dirimens copulation : a joining that interrupts 1. “Not only do we have this, but we have….” (5) D. To prove of its importance, Heinrich attempts a day without persuasion
1. “Free of advertising, politics, family squabbles, or any psychological manipulation whatsoever.” (6)
Offense
I. Argument vs. Fight A. “In a fight, each disputant tries to win.” (15)
B. “In an argument, they try to win over an audience – which can compromise the onlookers, television viewers, an electorate, or each other” (15)
1. In order to argue …show more content…

Seven Logical sins 1. False comparison- Believing two things are similar so they must be the same
2. Bad example- The example the persuader uses to prove a point is false, unbelievable, irrelevant, or wrongly interpreted
3. Ignorance as proof- The lack of evidence is proof enough that something doesn't exist or the fact that a theory hasn't been disproved means it's true
4. Tautology- Logical redundancy in which the proof and the conclusion are the same thing
5. False choice- The number of choices presented aren't the only choices that exist
6. Red Herring- Distracting the audience to make it forget what the main issue is about
7. Wrong Ending- Failing to lead to the conclusion
B. Logical Sins further summarized 1. Bad proof
2. Bad conclusion
3. Disconnect between proof and conclusion IX. Fallacies of formal logic A. Fallacy of power-The guy in charge wants it therefore it is good B. The “Rhetorical out-of-bounds” 1. Switching tenses away from the future 2. Inflexible insistence on the rules 3. Humiliation – an argument that sets out only to debase someone, not to make a choice 4. Innuendo- a statement that implies something but leaves no room for denial 5. Threat- denies the audience a choice so there is no argument 6. Nasty languages or signs, like flipping the bird
7. Utter stupidity-Cannot reach a successful conclusion if the arguer doesn't recognize his own fallacies X.