Everything in Moderation

When reading through the first few chapters of “Everything’s an Argument,” one small detail stuck out in my mind more vividly than any one particular mode of argumentation developed by the authors.  At the end of each section, which is generally devoted to a single tactic to be employed within arguments, the authors immediately advise against the overuse of each such strategy.  Two tactics that can be carelessly implemented are humor and emotional appeals.  Both are meant to be used in moderation, and even then only in very specific situations.  In the brilliant stand-up by Jim Gaffigan, in his argument against Hot Pockets, he relies almost solely on humor.  In this particular venue, this is to be expected however.  He is a comedian, and therefore he loses no credibility by cracking jokes throughout his argument on this less than serious topic.  Food is an area where humor is likely to be employed with little caution, as most people do not hold especially strong beliefs about it (although more and more people seem interested in such areas concerning it as animal treatment).  A presidential candidate in a debate is an entirely different story.  Humor may be used sparingly to break the tension between candidates, but if a candidate attempts to use too much he will overshadow serious issues, and thus lose ethos in the eyes of his supporters.  Emotional appeals must also be treated with the utmost care.  I refer once again to presidential candidates in a debate.  If a candidate is to quickly relate an important issue to a personal experience, it can really draw in viewers emotionally; however, if they frequent such a tactic that audience begins to feel quite like a gigantic puppet, as talked about in the book.  An informed viewer does not like being pulled around by their heartstrings.  The topic of this blog applies well both literally and figuratively to food as well.  Food is both meant to be eaten in moderation, and tactics of argumentation surrounding it should be as well.