Throughout his Jeremiad, How Soccer is Ruining America by Stephen H. Webb, a philosopher uses rhetoric in a strategic process to present his argument. Ironically, he starts his piece by speaking, and presenting facts as if he was against soccer, then goes on to present arguments that people would expect to see if they were reading an article about such a subject. In the first pages, Webb portrays himself as someone who's against soccer, but by the end of his jeremiad, makes it clear that his opinion is the complete opposite.
In the first two pages of How Soccer is Ruining America: A Jeremiad, Webb mimics the arguments of someone that believes the sport of soccer is actually in fact ruining America, but he does so with extreme amounts of detail. Webb introduces all of the negative aspects of soccer, some including: the fact that the sport restricts you to use your feet, a body part that is religiously sacred, the fact that it was brought over by the Europeans, and that it doesn't require or teach any type of skill. Following these details, Webb reveals the truth and although he made those previous arguments, all of his children play the sport, both competitively and as a family activity, and follows that up with the fact that after a full day of soccer, his family always comes home happy.
Webb puts himself in the position of his opponents. He attempts to mock the arguments that realistically go against his own beliefs. Through his writing, Webb comes off as irritable to his audience, which is a risky technique, I would say, to address his audience with such a tone. Webb uses specific diction choices to "attack" his audience. The four points he makes, he puts in words that are so ridiculous, it makes it hard to believe that someone would actually believe in such a thing. Authors often don't use topics that could weaken their argument, Webb takes a different approach and takes the topics that could weaken his argument and attacks them head on.
More interesting than his actual argument is the fact that he puts all this energy into backing up a claim that he truly doesn't believe in, to only take it apart piece by piece and prove what non-sense it is. It seems strange that such a well educated man would put all his effort into building an argument that opposes the one he's actually trying to make. Webb chooses to see the other sides point of view, and use it to further strengthen his argument, then leaving them with nothing else to build an argument out of. I believe this technique was gone about in a very sly manner, and should be used more often, giving readers both sides of the story. Since a Jeremiad is very opinionated, it gives the reader a chance to take in what the author is dishing out, and give a very strong opinion of their own.
In the first two pages of How Soccer is Ruining America: A Jeremiad, Webb mimics the arguments of someone that believes the sport of soccer is actually in fact ruining America, but he does so with extreme amounts of detail. Webb introduces all of the negative aspects of soccer, some including: the fact that the sport restricts you to use your feet, a body part that is religiously sacred, the fact that it was brought over by the Europeans, and that it doesn't require or teach any type of skill. Following these details, Webb reveals the truth and although he made those previous arguments, all of his children play the sport, both competitively and as a family activity, and follows that up with the fact that after a full day of soccer, his family always comes home happy.
Webb puts himself in the position of his opponents. He attempts to mock the arguments that realistically go against his own beliefs. Through his writing, Webb comes off as irritable to his audience, which is a risky technique, I would say, to address his audience with such a tone. Webb uses specific diction choices to "attack" his audience. The four points he makes, he puts in words that are so ridiculous, it makes it hard to believe that someone would actually believe in such a thing. Authors often don't use topics that could weaken their argument, Webb takes a different approach and takes the topics that could weaken his argument and attacks them head on.
More interesting than his actual argument is the fact that he puts all this energy into backing up a claim that he truly doesn't believe in, to only take it apart piece by piece and prove what non-sense it is. It seems strange that such a well educated man would put all his effort into building an argument that opposes the one he's actually trying to make. Webb chooses to see the other sides point of view, and use it to further strengthen his argument, then leaving them with nothing else to build an argument out of. I believe this technique was gone about in a very sly manner, and should be used more often, giving readers both sides of the story. Since a Jeremiad is very opinionated, it gives the reader a chance to take in what the author is dishing out, and give a very strong opinion of their own.