Bobbi vs Bakshi, argument analysis

Hello there, and welcome to another one of my slightly obsessive analysis. This time it is an in-depth analysis of an interrogation from Agents of Shield season 2, episode 8. Rest assured, you don’t need to actually know the show to follow along here, this will mostly concern the rhetorical aspects of the arguments and phrasings used, and if there’s anything that requires inside information I will give that to you. Other than that, all you need is a basic understanding of rhetorics, and if you need any help there check out my break down of rhetorical arguments right here. Though the stuff I use here is pretty self-explanatory.

And the end of this I will go over what writers can use this for and what lessons we can take with us from these three scenes. So without further ado, let’s dive straight in with Bobbi Morse and watch her interrogate Sunil Bakshi.

Scene 1

Bakshi starts out hard with a definition argument, claiming his own team grows stronger while the others are desperate and ignorant.

Bobbi disarms him with another definition argument: saying that everything he believes in is just a pamphlet, a cheap piece of paper handed out to anyone who is willing to read it. She then takes it one step further with an authority argument pulling his mother into it.

Bakshi makes his first mistake of threatening to go silent in a clear “you need me” power grab. With a less skilled opponent, this might have worked.’

And, of course, Bobbi strikes back at this by letting him know he has no power because he has no identity. She then flips the table on her own argument by asking how he can follow “someone so…” – which gives him back just enough identity to be allowed a choice – and thereby enough identity to give her what she wants.

He sees the definition argument coming and tries to deflate it before it can be uttered.

But Bobbi again flips the tables on him by ignoring the moral-based argument in favor of a quality-based one. She avoids the cliche like this and positions herself as something new in clear contrast to her already established definition of him as just a run of the mill, kind of vanilla villain.

All in all Bobbi wins this scene by a long shot, but not necessarily because her arguments are better, she keeps shifting in her definition arguments by describing Bakshi as either someone so basic he has no thoughts of his own or as someone capable of making a choice as to who to follow. She only keeps her headstart by making him dizzy so to speak, by constantly flipping the table on him so he doesn’t know which leg to stand on. If he had picked up on this he could have turned it around to his advantage.

Scene 2

Bobbi continues her pattern of flattery mixed with insults, and once again she avoids the morality issue entirely.

Bakshi doesn’t argue with her but turns her flattery into reverse sponsorship ethos – she said he was good enough to lead, and he turns that into ethos for his mentor by comparing himself with Whitehall. She handed him ethos on a silver platter and he passed it along to the man she was trying to diminish. Masterly done and quite impressive.

Bobbi then takes his admiration for his boss and turns it – once again – into an argument for his own mindlessness. She basically makes the sponsorship ethos donation look like Stockholm syndrome.

Then he goes on the defensive – a clear sign that she is getting to him.

Again she returns to her previous pamphlet argument, that he is spouting meaningless doctrines, and then she flatters him. She clearly seeks to create a distance between his ideals and him by flattering him and making fun of his beliefs.

Bakshi returns to threats, but threats to be carried out by Whitehall, not by Bakshi himself. Her attempt at distancing the two is clearly not working, and while a threat is usually a defensive stand he manages to add in a key ingredient: poking at her inability to do anything about it. Her attempts at breaking his bond have failed, just like she failed to save Tripp (a teammate they recently lost the way Bakshi described it).

She tries to deflect with a chuckle, but her headstart in the game is fading fast.

In this scene, Bobbi maintains her “lead” in the game, but Bakshi is rapidly gaining on her by refusing to let her break his allegiance to Whitehall. It is to his credit that flattery and the constant turning of tables don’t stumble him or make him hesitate. He keeps going despite being behind, gaining on her lead by sheer force of will.

Scene 3

Bobbi starts out with a leading question limiting the possible definition. Such a cheap shot, not even lawyers are allowed to use it.

He avoids the definition trap by hinting at the bond she has already failed to break.

This is another cheap shot, twisting his words to fit her narrative.

A simple statement they both know to be true, but no argument included. The playing field is level now, and he is proving that by ignoring her cheap shots forcing her to come up with something better to provoke a reaction.

She goes back to her former argument of brainwashing and fear, drawing inspiration from the acts he himself has partaken in and has no way of knowing for sure hasn’t been done to him.

He ignores her reused arguments and instead turns the tables on her. This attack is based on three things that she herself brought to the table: 1) involving Hydra and the acts they both performed there (just to be clear: she was undercover), 2) her avoidance of morality arguments, and 3) trying to create a void between her and the people she has pledged allegiance to.

She retaliates with vengeance, abandoning her attempts at getting more from him for the pleasure of letting him know she already got what she needed (which is discussed in a previous scene, but unimportant to this analysis).

She’s got him on the ropes now, but she’s also given up the ace up her sleeve at the first indication that he might have a good hand.

She pulls out the ace fully, flashing it in his face, and then she throws him a challenge.

He takes her challenge with selflessness – the thing she has been defining him as from the beginning and with the opposite result of what she had wished: he proves his loyalty.

In this third scene, I will gladly give the point to Bakshi. Bobbi might have technically won by getting the information she needed without Bakshi realizing (his choice of words let her to the right files in their archives), but he made sure to not lose again and took away her source of information. Bobbi started out great and kept him on his toes, but then she got sloppy and uninventive while he took in the information she was unwittingly providing him with, and he used it against her. He evolved and changed strategies. Bobbi won technically, but Bakshi played the best game and managed to go out with style (not the attempted suicide, I’m talking about his argument style).

So in conclusion (as promised) for my fellow writers and rhetors out there, here are a few key points to take with you from this:

• Evolution in argument creates tension.

• Having the underdog gain ground makes it seem more like fair play than bullying

• Even bad arguments can win

• Repetition and stale arguments can and most likely will lose you the game

• Ending on your own terms is crucial, if you don’t you might as well hand over the crown.

I hope some of you got something out of that breakdown. There is just something about two people fighting with words without one being less intelligent than the other that I just love. Do you guys have anything else I should break down and analyze for you? Or was there something in here you didn’t understand or disagreed with? Please let me know in the comments.