Blame, Values, Choice

This section really stood out for me because most of the time an argument does not get anywhere because people are changing the issue. In the example about the couple arguing over the volume of music being played is a good example in our daily lives. Heinrichs suggests that to get peace and quiet you should end up with the future tense because it usually ends with a payoff. You can see this in action as he describes his strategy with picking a name for their son. He presents his wife with a lot of alternatives but they were so extreme that she liked the average name "George" anyways. He does a good job tying in what he said from the first chapter. His argument with his son about the toothpaste worked both ways since his son used the deliberative argument approach to give the dad the choice. But the dad knew the best way to resolve this problem was to agree with his son. He did this in order to get what he wanted and his son ends up getting the toothpaste. It is such a cat and mouse game where you try to chase your opponent to the corner first. Although, you want to use future tenses to promote a choice, Heinrichs makes a good point that even if you are using the future tense that doesn't mean the argument is debatable. Some arguments are not debatable. We have to understand that we want to gain agreement somehow. Heinrichs uses the idea about an Uncle divorcing his wife for a trophy wife. The debate cannot be approached with a choice regarding whether the divorcement is good or bad. The choice is not debatable. There is no way to get a right answer.