Jared's Response to "How to Argue Effectively"

Jared Blanchard
Writing 150
Section 105
Critical Analysis of How to Argue Effectively


“I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends.” Dave Barry begins his essay How to Argue Effectively with these two sentences and immediately grabs the attention of his educated audience. He continues from there to instruct his readers in the art of argumentation according to the methods he’s observed in reality. The witty satire that follows effectively conveys the illegitimacy and immaturity of poor argumentation and entertains his educated audience by implementing logical fallacies, diction, and irony to undermine the validity of the author’s purposefully poor advice.

Throughout How to Argue Effectively Dave Barry includes logical fallacies that are easily identified by his educated audience. One of the most obvious of these fallacies is given when he recommends his audience to “Compare your opponent to Adolph Hitler. This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong.” In order to come out of a verbal joust on top, the author advises the use of a familiar fallacy, a red herring. Instead of using sound reasoning and clear verbal responses, he recommends simply changing the subject instead. This obvious failure of logic convinces the educated audience to do exactly the opposite of the author’s suggestion and its apparent lack of reason even brings in a factor of humor.

Another fallacy used is that of false cause. An example of this is when the author states, “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.” According to this flawed logic, he doesn’t get invited to parties because people respect him too much, when in fact it is easily deduced by his target audience that the reason for his exclusion is his obnoxious arguing. His use of fallacy in the essay is so evident that his educated audience finds it amusing, while the idea that some people actually argue that way convinces them to consciously avoid his methods.

Dave Barry also uses diction in his article to add to the overall satire of the paper. He describes immature arguing techniques like “Drink liquor,” “Make things up,” and “Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases,” by using externally sophisticated words and structure. The following passage is a good example of the superficial sophistication included in the article: “…you WILL win if you say, ’Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-à-vis Peruvians quo Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se as it were. Q.E.D.’ Only a fool would challenge that statement.” His educated audience finds amusement in the idea that such obviously incorrect arguing methods should be described in such a seemingly refined way. When describing the benefits of using his methods, he says, “You’ll argue forcefully, offering searing insight and possibly upsetting furniture.” The words used in this sentence have positive connotations of power and confidence that attempt to mask the negative results inherent to an educated audience. Dave Barry uses seemingly sophisticated diction to effectively portray the shallow tactics used by poor debaters and illustrate their inconsistency while bringing entertainment to his audience.

Irony is the most conspicuous tool used in How to Argue Effectively. The entire essay encourages the audience to use intelligent methods of argumentation by telling them to do just the opposite. Dave Barry’s purposefully feeble attempts to make poor argumentative techniques seem practical and effective actually motivate his audience to avoid those techniques. In one example he says “You need an arsenal of all-purpose, irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points,” thereby directing his audience to use meaningless comebacks instead of strong arguments. In another example, he advocates allowing oneself to slip into a drunken stupor rather than come up with valid points when he says “…if you drink several large martinis, you’ll discover you have strong views about the Peruvian economy.” An educated audience can find humor in this ironic article, simply because the methods described within are actually used fairly consistently in reality. They can make personal connections with the article which adds to its effectiveness. How to Argue Effectively makes use of irony throughout to both entertain the readers and educate them on what not to do in an intelligent argument.

Dave Barry succeeds in illustrating sub par methods of argumentation in his article How to Argue Effectively. He does this by incorporating logical fallacies, diction, and irony into his prescribed methods of debate. The contradictory reasoning and showy word play used in the essay are easily understood by his audience to be ironic and are seen as humorous. The work serves as a “what not to do” guide and simply reminds his readers of what they already know through social and intellectual experiences. By doing so, he actually motivates his educated audience to steer clear of his written methods and entertains them along the way.