Analysis Of Argumentative: My Love Of Rhetoric

Augmentative, that is the answer any of my family members would give if asked to described me in one word, well, that or annoying, but I would argue that in the eyes of many people they are synonyms… see!? I just cannot stop myself. This predisposition to argue is the dominant trait passed down to all male members of the Hernandez bloodline, we just cannot stop. If we see something we disagree with on any level, we will speak up. This love of rhetoric was what first drew me to this class. I wanted the ability, or at least the basis, to argue any point successfully, but like BuzzFeed would say “number 5 will shock you!” And, yes I was shocked. I always believed arguing was about destroying your ‘opponent’ to the point at which they would feel so foolish that they would have no recourse but to join your side, I was dead wrong. I quickly discovered through texts like The Medium Is the Message, that arguing is about getting your reader, or
While this was what I firmly believed, and to a large extend still do, I chose the wrong way to argue this. No human ever likes to be told that they are selfish, and that when they help another, the only reason they do it is because they get a psychological benefit from it. After learning that the best way to argue is to first get the audience on your side, I wrote my second paper. In my second paper, I first attempted to get the audience to my side by dropping the long held norm of excluding words like “we” and “you,” these words, while somewhat informal, are more representative of day to day speech, and by lowering the formality, allow for a deeper and more personal connection. I also purposely lowered the vocabulary, as that too allowed me to get closer with my audience, and remove any barriers that a higher lexicon might have