ARGUMENT IS WAR Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument.His criticisms were right on target. I demolished his argument. I've never won an argument with him. You disagree?Okay,shoot! If you use that strategy,he'll wipe you out.He shot down all of my arguments. It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war.We can actually win or lose arguments.We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent.We attack his positions and we defend our own.We gain and lose ground.We plan and use strategies.If we find a position indefensible,we can abandon it and take a new line of attack.Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle,there is a verbal battle,and the structure of an argument-attack,defense,counterattack,etc.-reflects this.It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture;it structures the actions we perform in arguing. Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war,where no one wins or loses,where there is no sense of attacking or defending,gaining or losing (5) ground.Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance,the participants are seen as performers,and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way.In such a culture,people would view arguments differently,experience them differently,carry them out differently,and talk about them differently.But we would prob- ably not view them as arguing at all:they would simply be doing something different.It would seem strange even to call what they were doing"arguing."Perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance. This is an example of what it means for a metaphorical concept,namely,ARGUMENT IS WAR,to structure (at least in part)what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue.The essence of metaphor is under-standing and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.It is not that arguments are a subspecies of war.Arguments and wars are different kinds of things-verbal discourse and armed conflict-and the actions performed are different kinds of actions.But ARGUMENT is partially structured,understood, performed,and talked about in terms of WAR.The concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured,and,consequently,the language is metaphorically structured. Moreover,this is the ordinary way of having an argument and talking about one.The normal way for us to talk about attacking a position is to use the words "attack a position." Our conventional ways of talking about arguments pre-suppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of.The metaphor is not merely in the words we use-it is in our very concept of an argument.The language of argument is not poetic,fanciful,or rhetorical;itARGUMENT IS WAR Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target. I demolished his argument. I've never won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot! If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments. It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument—attack, defense, counterattack, etc.—reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing. Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ((5)) ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would prob￾ably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they were doing "arguing." Perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance. This is an example of what it means for a metaphorical concept, namely, ARGUMENT IS WAR, to structure (at least in part) what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue. The essence of metaphor is under-standing and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. It is not that arguments are a subspecies of war. Arguments and wars are different kinds of things—verbal discourse and armed conflict—and the actions performed are different kinds of actions. But ARGUMENT is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of WAR. The concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured. Moreover, this is the ordinary way of having an argument and talking about one. The normal way for us to talk about attacking a position is to use the words "attack a position." Our conventional ways of talking about arguments pre-suppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of. The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in our very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical; it