Visual Arguments

Whether or not visual arguments are more pursuasive than written arguments depends on the audience,the message, and the way the argument was produced. If society is already moving towards becoming exclusively visual, you probably don't need to worry about the audience since they'd already be getting used to it.

Today, most arguements are already visual; they're all implicit. Women who are naturally beautiful selling makeup will sell more makeup than average-looking women. People respond more readily to it because they don't even realize why they've decided to by the $30 eye shadow instead of the $5.

Visual arguements often appeal more to pathos than written arguments. If I were to tell you that 91,000 Ugandans died of AIDS in 2006, it probably wouldn't have the same effect as showing you the photo of a young girl with the disease. Although the number shows the greater catastrophe, the photo makes it personal for you.

One thing that makes the visual arguemt weaker, however, is the fact that if you don't encode it, the iconic (visual) thing your sensory memory percieved will only stay in your mind for .5 seconds. Echonic (hearing) will stay for 3-4 seconds. If all arguments were iconic, people would stop encoding them into their short-term memories, making them all less effective as a whole. Visual arguments are most effective in a world where most arguments are not visual.