Jeff L's Analysis of "How to Argue Effectively"

Critical Analysis for Dave Berry’s How to Argue Effectively

In a humorous sense and hilariously mocking article to those who feel they know everything, Dave Berry has envisioned perfectly how to effectively argue with someone, having no current knowledge of the subject, and still being able to win the argument. This is no easy task, hence forcing some different approach ideas. The author creates a refreshing new perspective on the subject, breaking the mold of the typical argument with hilarious alternatives towards keeping the argument running and alive. In light seriousness, Berry uses humorous suggestions to effectively keep an argument alive, gain the support of an audience, and humiliate/frustrate the opposing arguer.

One instance of this change of perspective is the advice to drink liquor, and make things up. It goes on to say that by drinking liquor, the desire to fight back and actually enter the argument will drastically increase. At this point it’s safe to say that usually the argument is just to prove a point that it can be won. The suggestion to make things up follows up with the liquor, giving an answer for every question that will be asked by using exact figures, and made up academic sources. A solidifying statistic is hard to and rarely questioned in an argument. This portrays the off-the-wall approach that Berry is arguing with its risky originality in entering an argument by falsely proving that the topic is previously known knowledge. This process shows how by always having answers and keeping a strong stance can lead to an elongated argument that frustrates the competitor, and gives possibility for a supportive audience.

Another thing he encourages is the use of meaningless but weighty sounding words and phrases such as “let me put it this way”, “as it were” “in terms of”, and “per se”. Also listed are some Latin abbreviations i.e. “e.g.’ i.e., and “Q.E.D.”. This type of wording works well as seemingly scholarly phrases continuing to aid the reliability of what’s being argued. These fillers that light up the statements with believability and add a false sense of knowledge when in reality; the topic is new and foreign. In order to gain supporting audiences and keep the argument alive, these words act as supporters and fillers to the ideas that need refining touches to the rough drafted ideas in the head. They will continue to frustrate the opposing arguer, as well as showing confidence in what’s being said in the argument.

Adding onto the previously stated instructions, is the importance of taking not just a strong offensive side, but a defensive side as well by using snappy and irrelevant comebacks against the opponent. Some effective examples include “you’re begging the question”, “you’re being defensive”, and “don’t compare apples to oranges”. These are comebacks to revert to when the argument presented by the opposing seems to actually make sense, and needs to be confronted with authority and confidence. Whenever the opposing side feels like ground is gained, this will take away the short victory, and make them second-guess their arguments by taking them off guard. This is an example of one of the humorous ways to prolong an argument and giving it the potential to drag out as long as necessary for either the opponent to give up on the case, or to be lost in a confusing mess. These comments turn the pressure back on the opposing arguer, and give reasonable chance to frustrate and humiliate them, by manipulating them with irrelevant phrases.

The final instruction in winning is degrading the opponent’s stance by comparing him to a n object of public disgust. The example used by Berry is the comparison of the opponent to Adolf Hitler. This is sneakily accomplished by slipping in phrases such as “you remind me a lot of Adolf Hitler”, or “that sounds like something Adolf Hitler would say”. The point of doing this is to make the opposing arguer and the audience second-guess their thought process over the argument, and shift support. This is another irrelevant way of surprising the opposed with off-the- wall phrases that don’t add to the argument or relate in anyway, but simply degrade the opponent. This is the ultimate way of humiliating the opposing arguer that is hard to get around. This can cause them to become more frustrated, due to their confusion and growing loss of their supporting audience.

This essential guide on how to effectively argue creates a hysterical type of argument that takes on a new perspective on what it means to win an argument. This type of arguing does not necessarily mean that it’s proved that the victor knows more about the subject in question, but at the same time, is able to capture the attributes in winning an argument. It tackles the argument by defeating and confusing both the audience and the opposing argument to believe that the winner is not necessarily right, but that the loser is wrong. This argument strategy takes control of the audience, leaves the opponent confused, humiliated, and frustrated, and ultimately is created by a humorous outside-of-the-box look at the argument.