Josh's Analysis of "How to Argue Effectively"

Josh Low
10/2/11
WRTG 150-H
RFIW Article
How (Not) To Argue Effectively

Debate and scholarly argument are integral parts of American society, politics and even basic conversation. The art of a well-researched and respectable debate is a beautiful thing in which decisions can be made and diverse opinions can be heard. Dave Barry does not teach this art. Instead, he expounds upon and explores the humor in inappropriate, irreverent and ineffective argument. In his piece, “How to Argue Effectively,” Dave Barry skillfully misuses Ethos, Logos and Pathos to convince the reader of how not to argue effectively.

A well-versed politician or debater carries with him a sense of authority. This appeal to Ethos instills in the audience a kind of trust that can effectively nullify or validate an argument. Early in his work, Dave Barry spurns the reader’s sense of Ethos. He begins with, “I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends….People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don’t even invite me.” This amusing introduction causes the reader to question the article as a credible source. Under the guise of providing credentials for the work, Dave Barry undermines the authority of the article and creates an unprofessional air that permeates the entire work. Instead of establishing himself as a powerful authority, he becomes a mildly offensive amateur in the eyes of the reader. Dave Barry uses this illegitimate persona to then invalidate all of his subsequent arguments. By tying the ridiculous methods of debate proposed to an even more ridiculous character, the methods become absurd and even laughable to the reader. This effective use of Ethos, or lack of it, is one of Dave Barry’s strongest tools throughout the work in convincing the reader how not to argue.

Even stronger, however, is Dave Barry’s use of logical fallacies. Riddled throughout the work are non-sequiters, red herrings and attacks to the person. For example, under the heading “Drink Liquor” Dave Barry writes, “…if you drink several large martinis… [you will] be a wealth of information.” Obviously, drinking martinis will not increase one’s knowledge of any topic other than hangovers. This textbook example of a non-sequiter repulses the reader’s sense of logos and, therefore, invalidates the argument that drinking liquor will help one argue effectively.

Similarly, Dave Barry uses red herrings to once again upset the reader’s sense of logos. Under the heading, “Use Snappy and Irrelevant Comebacks,” Dave Barry encourages the reader to distract from real issues with unrelated phrases. Phrases like “You’re begging the question” and “Don’t compare apples to oranges” are touted as “an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back when your opponent makes a valid point.” By basing his argumentative style on this logical fallacy, the reader’s sense of logos immediately rejects the proposed method as legitimate. Again, Dave Barry has neglected logos to persuade the reader how not to argue effectively.

Yet another example of a logical fallacy can be found as Dave Barry blatantly employs an attack to the person. The final heading in the work reads “Compare Your Opponent to Adolf Hitler” and very blatantly instructs the reader to turn the focus of an argument from actual issues to personal attacks. As the reader is painfully aware, this technique does nothing to help prove a point or further a debate. Dave Barry uses that cognizance to once again repulse Logos and further persuade the reader of how not to argue efficiently.

The final and most effective weapon in Dave Barry’s arsenal is an appeal to Pathos. Through the use of humor, Dave Barry instills into the reader a positive emotional response to his own writing. The mental image of an irritated drunk “upsetting furniture” is really quite laughable. Phrases like “You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom” are solely designed to make the reader laugh. Laughter, as an expression of amusement and geniality, is obviously employed by Dave Barry. It is hard for the reader to not feel a connection with someone who can produce such powerful emotions and, as such a person, Dave Barry has tremendous power through this tool of persuasion. As the reader laughs along, he becomes emotionally connected to the author and, eventually, his opinions. In this case, the reader slowly soaks up Barry’s doctrine of how not to argue effectively based on a strong emotional connection to Barry himself.

Dave Barry’s ironically named work “How to Argue Effectively” is an adept combination of the three tools of persuasion. As Dave Barry instills into the reader his viewpoints and his own arguments, the importance of healthy and intelligent debate in all aspects of life is reinforced. If a single poor argument can ruin parties, imagine how much damage an important politician could do with a few unreasonable theses. It is in this spirit that Dave Barry so craftfully and artfully instructs the reader on how to argue ineffectively through misuse of the tools of ethos, logos and pathos.