AP Lang Summer Work 2017 discussion

Heinrichs says, "To persuade people--to make them desire your choice and commit to the action you want--you need all the assets in the room, and one of the best resources comes straight from your opponent's mouth" (42).

This is the idea of concession. Essentially, Heinrichs thinks that if you can find some point of agreement with your audience, admit they are right, then show them how that point of agreement leads to your conclusion, then you will persuade them to your side. Is this true? How does this work?

Obviously, there are many more factors besides finding a point both sides agree on to build off of, such as: commonplaces, mood, and the credibility of the persuader. However, theoretically speaking, if one side can display a better solution through logic (facts and statistics), context (what is needed), and profits (what will be earned), then the choice that seems to solve the issue will be easy. This tactic basically creates a starting point for the audience and persuader. From there, the speaker has to dangle "bait" in front of the audience and lead them to a solution they "want."

This is true with persuasion. When attempting to get someone to agree with you, you don't want to confront them and tell them that they are incorrect right away. You need to find their point and realize what they want to say is right, or what so ever. After agreeing with them is when you explain your opinions or thoughts. However, you have to make sure it sounds more reasonable than your audience's, or else you're probably going to get more deep into a conversation you want to end. Like what Ethan said above me, logic, context, and benefits will most likely express the best parts of your argument. If they agree with you, you've won. If they see what you're getting at, but attempt to back their interests even further, you've lost their attention and the argument.

Ethan wrote: "Obviously, there are many more factors besides finding a point both sides agree on to build off of, such as: commonplaces, mood, and the credibility of the persuader. However, theoretically speakin..."

I certainly agree with what you said about commonplaces, context, and profits (see what I did there), but I don't agree with you about logic. And, if you are reading Heinrich's pretty closely, you'll notice that he asks "who's logic?" If your trying to convince a person to come to your side, you have to get into their head, show that person how your way of seeing/doing things is the way they see/do things too. So even to use good old fashioned logos, you will be conceding somewhat so that you can frame the argument according to that person's perspective.

Jeffery wrote: "And, if you are reading Heinrich's pretty closely, you'll notice that he asks 'who's logic?' ...even to use good old fashioned logos, you will be conceding somewhat so that you can frame the argument according to that person's perspective."

You're completely right ( whoa same trick? ), reading back, "the most powerful logos tool of all: concession" (41), turns the argument into a sort of stage where the persuader has to direct the audience by using their assets into the ending the persuader desires. I must have replied too hastily if I missed the beginning section about logos.

The idea of concession in an argument is quite interesting. It is using an opponent's argument to your advantage. If one goes and straight up says someone is wrong, they will immediately be on defense. They become more reluctant too admit that anything other than their ideas are correct. However, if one suddenly shifts their idea of the argument in another direction, that person now has the upper hand. You are taking something they believe to be true and shaping or leading it to prove your point. It's kinda brilliant if one knows how to execute.

Well, it could be worth a shot. Each audience is different, one attempt could be successful, the other not so much. Some could be way too inflexible to budge from their initial argument. But say, if you were to get on their good side before carefully paving a way towards your own argument, things might actually swing towards your direction. I find this greatly practical and handy, whether or not you end up with what you want. Either way, this situation could become an advantage for you - loosen your audience up so that they become increasingly open-minded to other ideas.

I definitely agree that finding common ground, or a point of agreement is useful when trying to persuade another person. I've noticed that in many of my arguments, I will usually put more effort towards preventing whatever goal the other party is trying to achieve with the argument. However, this usually backfires, because it also prevents me from achieving whatever goal I desired out of the argument. In my experiences, this practice just causes the "opposing party" to be less willing to agree with me, but concession should does the opposite of this. By conceding to the other party's points in an argument, or by finding common ground, you get closer to achieving your goal in an argument. The improv class example does a great job of demonstrating this. By following the rule of, "Yes, and...", you can achieve your goal in a dialogue through agreement and concession.
(Edit: After writing this I realized the thread is named "Yes, and..." which is very fitting for a discussion on concession.)