To Lie or Not To Lie?

I don't believe what you say and you don't seem convinced by what I say. I think what you say is a lie and vice versa. So even if we don't think the same things, we do have something in common, the belief the other person's point in utter blasphemy. If it were a person, AP Lang would say that "it's all a lie." And since it is, Aristotle brought rhetoric to life. It did exist before though, but he gave it a structure so people could implement it. In a discussion where the other person doesn't acknowledge the veracity of my argument I must try to manipulate and change mind, mood, desire to act, or any combination of these. It is not easy I realized. Even though Heinrichs tried to convince me otherwise, Gaby and I both think there's a long way to go if one wants to use rhetoric successfully.

Actually, I doubt I have the ability to address each situation using pathos, logos, or ethos and aiming to change the person's mood, mind, and desire to act. Oh, and I forgot I must consider which tense is the most appropriate, past (forensic), present (demonstrative), or future (deliberative). Also, each of these has core issues of its own. Blame is related to the past because this already happened. Values are addressed in present tense and talking about the future questions a choice that might happen. And, generally, each of the tenses has an effect. I have to think about all of this to answer any argument and win it. To avoid getting owned I must literally overwork my brain. Maybe I never win arguments because I wasn't aware of rhetoric. Even though it's hard work, after some practice I might even have a debate about everything being a lie because if I succeed, what I say no longer will be a lie.