Ehninger & Zarefsky articles applied to argument for healthy eating

We read an article for class this week by Ehninger, who provides various characteristics of an argument.  He says that argument is not the same thing as coersion; arguments always require some type of a risk.  In the case for healthy eating, people must decide whether they are willing to give up their favorite, unhealthy foods in exchange for a healthier lifestyle.  Ehninger also discusses argument as bilateral, where no force is involved, but rather free choice is always employed.  Advocates of healthy eating do not force healthy foods down others' throats; instead, they present reasons (i.e. avoiding health problems, having more energy, physical appearance, losing weight) that encourage other people to adopt a healthy lifestyle.  Argument must end with a compromise.  In this case, that compromise may be that everyone is allowed to reward themselves once in a while with an unhealthy treat that doesn't fit into the typical healthy diet.

In a different article by David Zarefsky, the author presents his belief that reality is constructed through argument.  He discusses his idea that "definition of terms is a key step in the presentation of argument."  He also believes that power lies in the ability to create a definition for the topic at hand. When applying Zarefsky's ideas to my advocacy topic, I realized that the first step is in defining what exactly "healthy eating" is.  This can mean many different things to many different people, so in order to fully present our case in favor of adopting/maintaining a healthy diet, advocates must create a definition of what "healthy eating" means to us.