Aubrey's Analysis of "How to Argue Effectively"

Aubrey Bennett
Professor Spencer
Honors Writing and Rhetoric
3 September 2011
Oh Yeah? Well You're Just Stupid

Arguing is a very beneficial way to help enlighten someone's opinion. That may sound completely opposite of what society says, but that is because society as a whole does not know how to argue. Take this scenario for instance between John and Kara, a married couple. Now, John and Kara sporadically yell at each other but neither of them ever enlightens the other one's view and continually arguing only makes them more angry. However, in a turn of events, one day John gained the upper hand in an argument. He actually made Kara pause in her sputtering, and he thought she might understand. Kara, on the other hand, now scatterbrained, was not one to lose an argument, so in her utter desperation she frantically shrieked, “Well. Well, you are just stupid!” John threw up his hands and walked away, giving up. This sounds like a typical argument that many couples have. What they do not realize is this is faulty arguing because Kara’s reasoning is not sound and as a result she and John are not able to progress or understand each other. All Kara is doing is attacking John, which is known as a fallacy. In his article, “How to Argue Effectively,” Dave Berry effectively teaches one how not to argue by using fallacies. He effectively shows this by using an appeal to pathos, through the humorous way that he discusses his topic, an appeal to logos, by convincing the reader not to argue faultily, and irony, by his false assumptions that others respected him, to deduct that arguing is not effective when faultily reasoning.

The first tool that Dave Berry uses to support his thesis is an appeal to pathos through his humor. In his quote, “’Didn’t you read it? Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, ‘You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom,’” Dave Berry deceives his opponent regarding his understanding of the subject at hand even though he personally knows none or little aobut the subject, and then he tries to make his opponent feel stupid by questioning his or her knowledge on the subject (148). Through this first humorous quote, the reader is set at ease enjoying the comicality aspect of the paper, but not really taking the “advice” to heart. They do not really believe that to effectively argue one should make up information, but rather they understand that in order to have credibility, accurate information is necessary. Dave Berry has repeated instances of humor in his text as he uses fallacies, which is one of the reasons why it is so enjoyable to read. Thus, he is able to get his point across that fallacies do not legitimize an argument, but rather they weaken it.

Another tool that Dave Berry uses to support his thesis is an appeal to logos. In his quote, “So that’s it. You now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons,” he sums up his point in the last sentence that if the reader uses any of his “advice” all they are going to do is make someone angry (148). Arguing is beneficial at times, when an opponent is willing to listen, but it is exasperating when they are not willing to listen. He gives the reader every possible tool to persevere in an argument until he or she eventually gives up. The reason the arguer outlasts them though is because the only desire the agitated opponent will receive from them is the urge to knock them out so they will be quiet. In fact, he repeatedly gives examples throughout his text that arguing like that will not benefit the reader, but will only make their opponents angry. Thus, the reader is able to deduce that Dave Berry is not serious and that arguing with faulty logic is defective.

Finally, yet another tool that Dave Berry uses to support his thesis is irony. He opens up the topic of his article with an ironic quote that goes as follows, “I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don’t even invite me” (147). This quote is ironic because he interprets these actions of other persons towards himself as positive ones when in reality they are not. Dave Berry does this repeatedly through his text by preferring to see others abhorrence for him as signs of respect. Because his arguments were flawed and he did not ever admit that they were, those with whom he argued with could not stand him. They did not invite him to parties because they did not enjoy talking to him since he never listened and he believed he was a source for all knowledge whether correct or not. Through his ironic outlook on his relationships with others, the reader is more fully able to understand that to argue effectively one must do it without fallacies.

Dave Berry’s ironic use of fallacies through his appeal of pathos and logos not only makes his article enjoyable to read, but more fully convinces the reader to actually argue effectively. He catches his reader’s attention by making his article humorous and therefore, unbelievable. Then, he convinces his reader to not argue like the way he says by repeatedly telling of the consequences that came about because he argued like that. The ironic part comes in when he believes that people reacted coldly towards him as a result of their respect and awe. If Kara and John were to read his article, they would feel stupid because that is exactly how they argued.