Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion

Heinrichs argues that there are three essential qualities of a persuasive argument that employs character. These qualities will turn persuaders into credible leaders. Borrowing from Aristotle, Heinrichs introduces the first quality, virtue or cause; in other words, when “the audience believes you share their values” (54). He emphasizes that persuaders do not have to be truly noble or righteous people (though they can be). Rather, an audience just needs to believe that the persuader possesses the “‘right’ values—your audience’s values” (56).

Heinrichs goes on to introduce several tools that will “pump up your rhetorical virtue” (62). One tool is character reference, with which other parties brag on the persuader’s behalf. For example, during John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign against Barack Obama, he rarely talked about his heroism as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Instead, many other politicians and supporters did.

Another tool is tactical flaw—a weakness that wins sympathy from an audience or emphasizes sacrifices made by the persuader. George Washington, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States who served as the country’s first president from 1789 to 1797, was a master of this tool. During the Revolutionary War, officers were growing increasingly frustrated by delays in their payment. Washington requested a meeting and showed up with a resolution that ensured the officers’ immediate pay. He fumbled with his spectacles and stated, “Forgive me, gentlemen, for my eyes have grown dim in the service of my country” (63). Washington turned his error (fumbling with his glasses) into something noble (loss of eyesight due to his sacrifices for the country), immediately garnering sympathy and adoration from the officers. 

Heinrichs turns to Aristotle’s second quality of persuasive ethos—phronesis, practical wisdom or craft. This quality comprises appearing to know the right thing to do in every situation. Heinrichs reminds readers that “persuasion starts with understanding what they [the audience] believe, sympathizing with their feelings, and fitting in with their expectations—characteristics of logos, pathos, and ethos” (68). Ethos is especially important. A persuader might already share their audience’s beliefs and feelings, but this is not enough to rouse them. The audience must consider the persuader a master of their craft, someone worth following.

Heinrichs details three techniques to inspire this trust. The first is to “show off your experience” in an argument. The second technique is to “bend the rules”; persuaders should not apply rules where they do not fit unless their audience expects to see them. The third and final technique is to “seem to take the middle course.” By stating a decision that lies between extremes, the audience will be more inclined to think the persuader’s opponent is extreme. 

Heinrichs details Aristotle’s third quality of ethos: disinterest, or appearing impartial to an audience. He reiterates that a persuader does not have to embody selflessness (as first expressed in Chapter 6)—rather, their audience just needs to believe they do. Because every character has its flaws, one must use rhetoric tricks to appear “wholly objective or nobly self-sacrificing” (75). Borrowing from Cicero, Heinrichs identifies the reluctant conclusion (i.e., an agent acting reluctant in reaching a conclusion). Agents must make it seem like they reached a conclusion only after considering a large volume of evidence. This tool is especially effective when an agent admits that they once believed the same thing as their opponent but changed their mind due to logic.

Next, Heinrichs identifies dubitation (“doubt”), in which a speaker appears to be in doubt—so as to avoid appearing manipulative. Quintilian, a Roman educator and chief rhetorician from Hispania (modern-day Spain), described this tool as one in which “A speaker might choose to feign helplessness by pretending to be uncertain how to begin or proceed with his speech. This makes him appear, not so much as a skilled master of rhetoric, but as an honest man” (77).

Finally, Heinrichs describes authenticity, which is when an audience believes the persuader is being their genuine self (and thus, worthy of trust). He argues that “authenticity lies at the heart of rhetorical character” (80).