Heinrichs refers to rhetoric as "the art of influence, friendship, and eloquence...irrefutable logic....most powerful....argument." We both define argument differently in that I once that it was merely winning over another person rather than actually having them agree with your argument. Overall I do believe that our definitions of rhetoric are fairly similar in that it is an art of persuading an audience.

The tactics Heinrichs discusses are not new, in fact I have used seduction and manipulation to get what I desire. I have often lost many arguments because as Heinrichs states I used the past tense, in that rather attempting to have my audience agree with me, I started targeting them and blaming them for doing something wrong.

I work with people on a daily basis and in the past I worked as a resident assistant at the University in which I had to choose my arguments wisely when dealing with resident confrontations are co-worker confrontations. I do feel like the most beneficial tactic Heinrichs expressed was the idea of choosing which speaking tense to argue with because this has the power of manipulating your audience into agreeing with you. Until now I never had really considered how past/present/future tense can change the argument atmosphere.