Analyzing Rhetoric.

I believe that analyzing a rhetorical argument allows one to either make a stronger counter argument or to be more justified in his/her agreement. Rash decisions and opinions are often made when one does not take the time to scrutinize an argument. A person can be easily persuaded by an argument that seems legitimate simply based on their personal beliefs. However, even if the person agrees with the overall statement, the argument could be flawed and then the listener ends up with false information and generally passes it on to others. On the other hand, if the listener disagrees with the argument, a rhetorical analysis gives him/her the ability to counter the statement by pointing out its fallacies and weak points. Ultimately, rhetorical analysis allows for one to become a better debater and helps to prevent false information from circulating.
In the case of last week’s vice presidential debates, I would be curious to analyze both Biden’s and Palin’s arguments. Being a liberal myself, I favored Biden in the debate overall and generally dismissed all of Palin’s claims. However, if I actually spent the time to go over the text of the debate I would probably be surprised to find that many of Biden’s arguments were faulty while many of Palin’s were legitimate—although I would rather not admit it.
My Dad has always told me that I am quick to debate and unfortunately have the tendency to not fully listen to my opponent’s argument (I always tell him that I get it from him!). As I’ve grown older I have purposely made the effort to carefully listen to my opponents in order to form more solid, convincing counter arguments. Although I am not doing formal rhetorical analyses, the purpose is similar in that I am finding the strong and weak points of my opponent’s claims which, ultimately, allows for me to win the debate or prove my point.
Although a formal rhetorical analysis can be tedious, the end result is worthwhile. If one fallacy is disproved with each analysis done, everyone benefits.