Rhetorical Soccer

It is very common to find a person who thinks that arguing and fighting are basically the same. This person is wrong. This is what Jay Heinrichs tries to clarify in the second chapter of his text, Thank You for Arguing. Before describing the many methods of arguments, Heinrichs clarifies what arguments truly are and how they are different from fighting.

Heinrichs defines argument as the attempt to make someone to want to do what you want. In the other hand, fighting is the attempt to force someone into doing what you want. "You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (17). A way in which I like to represent this is in international conflicts. If you try to solve the conflict with a treaty, both parties are generally happy with the result. This would represent the argument. In the contrary, if you decide to go in by force and invade the other party in the conflict, you might have a victory, but you will be in the risk of the other party fight back in the form of a revolt or revolution due to the built up anger against your methods. This would represent fighting. Sadly, this representation is very literal and very large scale making it seem like an unrelatable, uninteresting lecture. Because of this, I decided to make a much "cooler" representation. If you carefully analyze it, soccer can actually be used as an example of this contrast.

Soccer and language! Many athletes go to play in order to get away from classes such as English. Who could have possibly made a connection between these two polar opposites? This guy (points at self with both thumbs).

The method of victory in soccer, much like in most other sports (not golf), is getting the most points. Because of this, every player aims for his team to score many goals. There are two different ways for one to approach this goal (pun intended). The first one is the tactical approach. Whether it's the passing moves of Barcelona or the waiting for the counter attack of Chelsea, tactic shows to have a huge impact on the result, and tactic, in its core, is a form of argument and rhetoric. When you think up a tactic, it is impossible to avoid taking into consideration the behavior of the opponents since they are a fairly important part of the game. If you pass the ball around, you are trying to make the opponent's players run after the ball and get tired, making it easier to score. If you defend and look for the counter attack, you are trying to make the opponent's players spread out and leave behind a lot of space for an attack, making it easier to score. In both scenarios, the tactics are trying to make the opponents do what the teams want them to do: Heinrichs's definition of argument.

If tactic represents the arguments in soccer, what represents the fights? This part is actually quite literal. In soccer, fights are fouling the opponent. By making absurd tackles, you can injure the opponent's players, stop plays, and possibly make it easier for your team. However, fouls don't give you goals or points. In fact, fouls get your players sent off. Fouls are an option that is also a big risk. This is a characteristic shared with fighting. It has the possibility of working, but it leaves you open and at risk.

If you like to watch soccer, it is pretty obvious that tactic is preferable over fouling. In the same way, for people that know rhetoric, it is pretty obvious that argument is preferable over fighting. This goes to show how universal rhetoric is even if you are not aware of it.