Heinrichs asserts the idea that there are several "fouls" in both formal logic, and the rhetorical argument. He emphasizes the difference between strictly logical argument and arguments which incorporate logos. Rhetoric allows logical fallacies, unless they distract a debate or turn it into a fight. He states that people should never argue the inarguable, meaning one should not stop the debate when a someone has committed a logical fallacy. Instead, he stresses that, a good rhetorician would find a clever way to exploit their opponents’ logical fallacies while moving the debate forward. However, does not mean ‘anything goes’ in a debate, rather he further writes that the only reason to “call foul” in an argument is if someone argues the inarguable. For instance, if someone refuses to budge on their beliefs or argues only to humiliate an opponent. The seven rhetorical out-of-bounds include: switching tenses, inflexible insistence on the rules, humiliation, innuendo, threats, nasty language or signs, and utter stupidity. Heinrichs further continues demonstrates how to evaluate someone’s ethos by testing their disinterest, virtue, and
Heinrichs asserts the idea that there are several "fouls" in both formal logic, and the rhetorical argument. He emphasizes the difference between strictly logical argument and arguments which incorporate logos. Rhetoric allows logical fallacies, unless they distract a debate or turn it into a fight. He states that people should never argue the inarguable, meaning one should not stop the debate when a someone has committed a logical fallacy. Instead, he stresses that, a good rhetorician would find a clever way to exploit their opponents’ logical fallacies while moving the debate forward. However, does not mean ‘anything goes’ in a debate, rather he further writes that the only reason to “call foul” in an argument is if someone argues the inarguable. For instance, if someone refuses to budge on their beliefs or argues only to humiliate an opponent. The seven rhetorical out-of-bounds include: switching tenses, inflexible insistence on the rules, humiliation, innuendo, threats, nasty language or signs, and utter stupidity. Heinrichs further continues demonstrates how to evaluate someone’s ethos by testing their disinterest, virtue, and