This thesis highlights the distinct methods of persuasion employed by the National Restaurant Association and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United in their arguments related to tipping. Both parties limit the strength of their arguments by ignoring the opposition's case, selecting instead facts and evidence that construct a persuasive, yet incomplete picture of tipped wages, the tipped worker, and the restaurants that employ these workers. I propose a focus on dialogic interaction which I define as the obligation of the rhetor to respond to available counter-claims, to be open to questioning, and to be truthful. Reclaiming dialogic interaction between parties and will improve the quality of the individual arguments and the debate overall. It will point toward a more complete understanding of the data, arguments, and players involved in framing the issue of restaurant worker wages.