Why Nobody Loves a Smart-A**

I have always loved opportunities to be a smart-ass. What could be more fun than being able to poke holes in a friend’s logic? To see through and point out their fallacies? And while it may be fun, it also derails arguments. For I, in these situations, had been committing “rhetorical fouls” (Henrichs). Because although it may please me to annoy my opponent by pointing out these fallacies, they would have, in most cases, stayed in bounds - rhetorically speaking. I, though, would not have. This is because many logical disconnects are permitted within rhetoric for the reason that the main purpose is to persuade the opponent. If a logical fallacy aids you in your pursuit, so be it. I then made it worse by committing a rhetorical foul: I tried to humiliate my opponent. This has no purpose but to put an end to useful argumentation and may lead to a fight.

For example, I may be arguing on the side of nuclear power (which I am against) with a classmate who supports it in a class debate. They may cite the events of Chernobyl as the main reason why nuclear power should not be used. This, however, would be a fallacy. While the events of Chernobyl were no doubt catastrophic, this alone does not mean nuclear power is bad. More so that it was misused in the situation. But to the audience, this does not matter. For to them, a disturbingly eerie picture of the post-apocalyptic Chernobyl will align them emotionally with my opponent more than my pointing out his/her fallacy will.

And this makes sense. I have often left an argument in which I lost trying to figure out how exactly I lost. How could I have lost when I had logic on my side. But the thing is that in rhetoric, nobody cares about “Vulcan logic” (cold, hard facts) (Henrichs), you need some emotion too. Because you need to get them on your side. Something that pure logic will always fail to do.