It is often the case that people remain unpersuaded by a given set of statements. Observations of multiple debates have led to the following conclusion: Logic is not enough for the average person. Introductory college English courses give some instruction on the techniques of persuasive essay writing, though not enough of the psychology and relationship between each form of persuasion. It is the intent of this essay to present a hypothesis on how decisions are made based on these forms of writing. To reiterate what is taught in the classes I have analyzed, three branches are supposed to produce the most persuasive works. It may be helpful to refer to these three branches by the terms most will understand them by: emotive, ethical, and logical. Hopefully some meaning is already beginning to surface. It is important to explain the mechanics of each branch before relating them to each other. Again, hopefully the reason for this will become clear momentarily.

There's something that has always bugged me about certain people's arguments. For example, the creationist thermodynamics argument they keep throwing out like a dead cow and saying "whaddya think about that! Betcha never seen this before, have ya?" It obvious that when they talk about entropy it's vastly different from the way physicits and information theorists talk about it. An argument over terminology and what entropy is usually ensues, diluting the overall point like an impromptu red herring.

I've often tried to solve this problem by going along with what I think they think whatever verb they are using means, and slowly shifting their view of it to its actual definition within the context. I think such arguments over terminology only serve to put the listener on the offensive even more and distract from the topic, and are therefore useless WITHOUT AN AUDIENCE. That's why the broadcast format works so much better than individual intervention; it's not the person you're arguing with who you're trying to persuade, it's the people who happen to be listening.