Intuitively in the argument principle, why does the integral of the logarithmic derivative of a meromorphic function over a closed curve give the number of zeros minus the number of poles? My guess is that by writing
$$\int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \ln[f(z)]dz = \int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \ln ( r(z)e^{i\theta (z)} ) dz =\int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \ln(r(z)) dz + i \int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \theta (z) dz$$
we see $\int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \ln(r(z)) dz = 0$ because $f$ has no zero's or poles on $\gamma$ so the total change of $r(z)$ is zero.
Hence making sense of $ i \int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \theta (z) dz$ is all that's left, but I can't see why the sum of the changes in the argument around a contour containing zero's and poles should give the number of zero's minus the number of poles. At best, using the trick you use in proving Cauchy's integral formula I can see that:

so $ i \int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \theta (z) dz$ can be interpreted as summing up these changes, but I don't see why the arrows have to be in the direction they are by looking at $ i \int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \theta (z) dz$.
Is there a nice rock-solid way to make sense of $ i \int _{ \gamma} \frac{d}{dz} \theta (z) dz$ ?