One thing that really stood out for me in this reading is how easy it is to read. The informal nature of the language makes it more of a conversation with the reader, which I really enjoyed. It seems like many of the forms of persuasion seem to end up being about manipulation. This seems to be a very Machiavellian approach to getting your way that I am not very fond of. I was very interested in the authors distinction between an argument and a fight. It is very logical that you would want to persuade in an argument and dominate in a fight as the author dictates. I know a lot of people who may approach an argument seeking no middle ground and no willingness to look at a dilemma with an objective view. A great example of this is Congress. In this day and age no party member wants to be the one who reconciles with the opposing party. Instead it seems as though politicians are approaching their jobs as a fight in which they must win at any cost. Instead we must urge them to accept concessions.

Help Received: None