What is the difference between a fight and an argument? Those who do not know the difference or simply cannot articulate the difference are the people for whom Thank You for Arguing was written. Which means, of course, that it is a book written for nearly everybody. The level at informed debate exists today indicates a devolving understanding of the concept. For the record, the author asserts that the overarching chasm separating arguing from fighting is that the latter is aimed toward being won while the purpose of arguing is persuasion.
Heinrichs is not the first author to write an information text about the art of rhetorical persuasion. He is, however, almost certainly the first to reference John Locke alongside South Park and Plato’s Republic alongside the 1950’s sitcom Father Knows Best. Central to the book’s delineation of tools of rhetoric going back to the ancient Greece is the situation of iconic pop culture animated anti-hero Homer Simpson as the embodiment of fallacious argumentative techniques. And this is where Thank You for Arguing departs from the literally thousands of books published before covering the same territory.
Rhetorically speaking, there is nothing new here. Heinrichs has not discovered some secret new means of persuasion nor has he ignored all the many pitfalls of logical fallacies. The book defines and presents examples of rhetorical devices whose names you may know, but not necessarily understand: ad hominem, Straw Man, begging the question, red herring, and equivocation. These are terms which have existed for centuries or even millennia and that many readers probably learned about at some point in school. Those wanting merely to learn can discover a host of instructional material.
Or one can dig into Heinrichs’ book and instead of learning about how to persuade using anaphora from some philosopher writing in the Middle Ages, they can learn the humor of a Monty Python sketch. What is a mea culpa and how can it be used—or countered—in an argument? Heinrichs illuminates the power through referencing a scene in the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap. One of the most valuable lessons that is taught through pop culture reference rather than high culture allusion is also one of the most eye-opening: Star Trek’s notorious icon of logic, Mr. Spock, is a rhetorical “stiff” whose rejection of emotional appeal dooms him forever to failing to persuade those susceptible to arguments which appeal to emotions.
Ultimately, Thank You for Arguing offers no information which has not been available for thousands of years, but then that’s not the point. The book exists as a concrete example of its content: it is itself a rhetorical tool appealing to a certain type of reader. It persuades through the judicious utilization of many of the very rhetorical tools it makes clearer to modern readers by demonstrating these lessons in persuasion using examples to which they can better relate.
