For Argument's Sake...

“It is important to see that we don’t just talk about arguments in terms of war. We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war.” (Lakoff and Johnson, 4)

Rebecca Jones, in her article “Finding the Good Argument,” points out that most Americans think of arguments in terms of war. “All's fair in love and war” is one of the most prevalent sayings in our nation, and it therefore brings negative connotations to the forefront of everybody's minds. However, as Jones points out, arguments don't always have to be about fighting your opponent and winning. Thinking about argument as a dance brings it to light in a much more positive way – one in which you aren't simply focused on winning. She mentions the 2008 presidential debate and how the candidates “dug in their heels” whether their argument was even relevant. I have listened to several debates – presidential and non – and some people don't even broach the topic given them, they simply start to argue. These people obviously think of argument as war – simply throwing grenades without aiming or waiting for direction. If they were to think about argument as a dance, they would understand the subject and have an easy back and forth with their “dance partner.”

Another way to think about argument is as Gorgias thought of it: ethos, logos, pathos. Ethos (credibility), logos (logic), and pathos (emotions), can be combined to achieve the maximum effect in any argument. It is easiest to start out with ethos. Establish your credibility first so that your audience doesn't question you. Then, you bring in the logical arguments. Finally, an emotional appeal has the ability to sway those few fence-riders left after your logical arguments have been made.