5. Speech
Cross-Examination Debate
Cross-examination debate, also known as CX or policy debate, is a four-person form of debate that draws from traditions and rules in the legal and policy-making fields. In CX debate, two teams of two people each debate the merits of a proposed policy. The nature of that policy is defined by a resolution, such as: Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States . One side, the affirmative, suggests a specific policy that falls within the bounds of that resolution and argues that the policy should be enacted because doing so would accrue a number of advantages. The other side, the negative, argues against that specific policy by articulating drawbacks and disadvantages that would result from enacting the affirmative's policy. The negative also refutes the affirmative's claimed advantages. In essence, the conclusion of the affirmative team's argument is that this policy should be enacted. The conclusion of the negative team's arguments is that this policy should not be passed. CX debate differs from LD debate in that there are four constructive speeches, which can be used for the introduction of new arguments, and four rebuttal speeches, which are used for refuting and summarizing arguments. Click here for more detailed information about the format of CX debate.
3. Logical argument
Logical arguments are more commonly found in writing, especially academic writing, than they are in speeches or debates. Logical arguments attempt to establish the truth of a conclusion through straightforward and self-evident forms of reasoning. Logical arguments can either be deductive or inductive. A deductive argument is one that claims to provide definitive and incontrovertible evidence for the truth of its conclusion. The following is an example of a deductive argument. All soft drinks are carbonated. Pepsi is a soft drink. Therefore, Pepsi is carbonated. A valid deductive argument is one that succeeds in that aim. That is, if the premises of a valid deductive argument are true, then the conclusion absolutely must be true. The argument above is a valid deductive argument. If all of the premises of a deductive argument are true, but the conclusion is still not true, then the argument is said to be invalid. An inductive argument is one that claims only to provide some amount of support for its conclusion. If an inductive argument's premises are true, its conclusion most likely is true, but it does not have to be. For example, Most basketball players are tall. Linda is a basketball player. Therefore, Linda is probably tall. If the premises of that argument are true, we have some reason to believe that Linda is tall, but we can't guarantee it. Let's highlight that distinction by looking at some more arguments.
The Basics of Argumentation
The ability to formulate, recognize, and criticize arguments is crucial to successful reading, writing, and speaking. Rational discourse and education are founded on the idea that people can use evidence and logic to persuade others to change their minds and adopt new ideas. What Is an Argument? An argument is group of statements, one of which is claimed to derive or follow from one or more other statements. The following statement reflects one example of a basic argument: "We should go to the store because we are out of milk." There are three main parts of an argument: the premise, the conclusion, and the warrant. Oftentimes, the warrant of an argument is left unstated because it is obvious and uncontroversial. Were the warrant in the argument above to be stated explicitly, the argument would read something like this: "We should go to the store because we are out of milk, we need more milk, and we can get milk at the store." The fact that most warrants are unstated makes it more difficult to identify than the other two parts of an argument. Though the warrant is innocuous here, identifying and articulating warrants are the key to recognizing faulty and fallacious arguments. Identifying and articulating an argument's warrant is like building a bridge between the premises and conclusion. Let's look for warrants in another argument.
Understanding Speeches and Oral Presentations How Do You Identify the Main Points of a Speech?
The easiest way to improve your comprehension of oral presentations is to take careful notes. It is virtually impossible to remember the key points of all but the very shortest of speeches without some form of written record. In your notes, you will want to identify the main point or idea of a speech as well as the evidence that's offered in support of it. Most speeches are structured like essays in that they introduce their main idea either at the beginning or at the end. Oftentimes speakers will employ a circular structure and introduce their main idea early, offer supporting evidence in the body of the speech, and then come back to the main idea as the speech closes. Speakers can rely on a wide variety of evidence to support their main point. Some of the more common types of supporting evidence include: types of evidence A previous lesson introduced the idea of conclusion and premise indicators. These trigger words turn up in oral presentations and speeches with great regularity and help identify key components. Here is a speech for practice. Click here to open a pop-up window containing the text of the Gettysburg Address. Read it once, and take notes while you do so. When you're finished, close the window, and answer the following question using only your notes as a reference.
Analyzing Speeches & Oral Presentations How Do You Identify a Speech's Purpose?
The previous lesson discussed techniques for identifying and labeling a speaker's point of view. Doing so will help you, as a listener, get a better handle on a speech's purpose. Broadly speaking, speeches and oral presentations have one of two purposes. A speaker who adopts a positive or negative point of view toward her subject matter is usually advocating a position, actively supporting and arguing in favor of it in an effort to encourage the listener to adopt the same view. If a speaker's point of view is neutral, she is likely to be summarizing a position, presenting evidence for and against it without stating an opinion on what the listener should conclude from that evidence.
4. Appeal to authority
An appeal to authority argues that a conclusion should be accepted as true because an expert with specialized knowledge of the matter believes that it is true. Appeals to authority are quite common in everyday interaction: People should wash their hands regularly because doctors say doing so prevents disease. You should wear your seat belt because transportation department studies show that seat belts save lives. We should go see this movie because the movie critic gave it four stars. The hallmark of an appeal to authority is the substitution of the claim that an expert holds a given belief in the place of an explanation for the reasoning that led to that belief. Here's a question you can use to practice identifying this type of argument.
2. False analogy
An argument uses a false analogy if it compares as similar two objects or situations that in reality are quite different. An argument by analogy must establish relevant similarities between the items it is comparing before its comparison can carry persuasive weight. Even an argument that identifies similarities between the items it is comparing can be fallacious if the similarities do not connect to the main point of the argument.
Some Common Logical Fallacies 1. The Fallacy of False Cause
Any argument that presumes a causal relationship without offering reasons to support it is committing the fallacy of false cause. It is difficult to argue successfully that a relationship of cause and effect exists in this fallacy. The fact that two events occur in close proximity to each other is not reason in itself to assert that one caused the other. A particularly common form of the false-cause fallacy is known as an argument post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," this fallacious argument asserts, without evidence, that the fact that one event occurred earlier in time than a second event means the first event caused the second one.
What Is a Logical Fallacy?
Each of the argument forms listed above is a useful, legitimate way to attempt to establish the truth of a claim. However, many writers and speakers also knowingly or unwittingly employ logical fallacies, faulty forms of argumentation that provide no support for the conclusion they purport to establish. On the surface, the fallacies and the legitimate arguments can very similar, but a closer reading will reveal that the fallacies make crucial missteps that undermine their argumentative force. Learning to distinguish between fallacious arguments and credible ones is the heart and soul of rhetorical analysis, which is a crucial component of both oral and written criticism. 1. Appeals to Emotion One of the most common logical fallacies is the appeal to emotion, in which a speaker abandons sound reasoning and the presentation of evidence in favor of statements that tug at the heartstrings or exploit sentiment. 2. Argument Ad Populum Closely related to—and just as common as—the appeal to emotion is the fallacious argument ad populum. Meaning literally an argument "to the people," an argument ad populum appeals to the popularity of an idea or to the potential of an idea or a product to make one popular as a reason to accept the truth of a conclusion. Arguments ad populum are fallacious because the fact that an idea or conclusion is popular and widely held is not a reason to believe that it is true. In the realm of commercial advertising, the argument ad populum has been refined to a science. These are only two of the numerous types of logical fallacies, enumerated here because of the frequency with which they appear in speeches and writing. For the remainder of this lesson, we will focus on the fallacious counterparts to the previously discussed legitimate argument forms.
What Are the Indicators of a Speaker's Point of View?
How was it that we were able to label Lou Gehrig's point of view toward his retirement? Just as terms like premise and conclusion indicators point out different parts of an argument, emotionally significant words play a key role in identifying a speaker's point of view. Gehrig's use of words and phrases like "luckiest man on the face of the earth," "never received anything but kindness and encouragement," and "I have an awful lot to live for" establishes his point of view. In The Gettysburg Address, phrases like "altogether fitting and proper," "so nobly advanced," and "increased devotion" provide clear evidence of Lincoln's point of view. So, to identify a speaker's point of view: Listen for emotionally charged words Make note of descriptive phrases Begin with a broad a characterization (positive, negative, or neutral) Use key words and phrases to formulate a more specific description
What Are Some Common Types of Arguments? 1. Argument by cause and effect
One of the most frequently employed types of arguments is an argument by cause and effect. Arguments by cause and effect attempt to demonstrate that an otherwise mysterious state of affairs is the direct result of some other factor. Both of the following arguments are arguments by cause and effect: The emission of greenhouse gases causes global warming. Eating chili gives Rick heartburn. Cause-and-effect arguments can be divided into two main varieties: Arguments of Difference Cause and effect arguments that attempt to explain the dissimilarities between two situations by isolating a single difference between them. Arguments of Similarity Cause and effect arguments that try to explain the fact that numerous situations are similar to each other by isolating a single commonality between them. The global warming argument above is an argument of difference. It compares one situation—the present, when the earth's temperature is steadily rising—to another—a previous time when the earth's temperature was basically static—and concludes that the factor that has created the difference between those two situations is the emission of greenhouse gases. By contrast, the argument about eating chili is an argument of similarity. It evaluates all the situations in which Rick has gotten heartburn and tries to find a single factor that was present in all those situations. Its conclusion is that that factor is eating chili. Let's look at some more cause-and effect-arguments.
Delivery
Polished delivery is equally crucial to making an effective speech. For a well-written speech to be effective, the speaker must deliver it in a way that encourages the audience to engage and agree with the topic. The most famous speeches—from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech to John F. Kennedy Jr.'s inaugural address—are remembered primarily for their signature lines, but those lines stick out in our memories because they were delivered effectively: at the right speed, in the right voice, and at the right time. Components of effective delivery include: Word choice: use of appropriate vocabulary and tone Appropriate cadence and pacing: "Goldilocks speed" that is neither too fast nor too slow Effective voice projection so that the speech is easily audible Varying voice volume: speaking louder when making key points Varying delivery speed: slowing down or speeding up (as appropriate) to emphasize key points Effective use of timing, including manipulation of brief silences Use of light repetition for emphasis of key points Eye contact and non-verbal interaction with the audience Involving the audience mentally with rhetorical questions and similar devices There is no single "correct" way to approach each of these elements of delivery. Rather, a speaker must select the delivery that is most suitable to the content of a speech and the forum in which he or she is presenting it. A keynote speaker at a political convention, for example, should talk louder and faster than a eulogist at a funeral. A kindergarten teacher introducing students to letters of the alphabet should make heavier use of repetition than a college professor who is summarizing a grading rubric.
2. Argument by Analogy
Arguments by analogy attempt to prove that an object, person, or situation has a certain characteristic by claiming that other, similar objects, persons, or situations have the same characteristic. The argument about dogs above illustrates the basic principles of argument by analogy. Principle & Example 1) It establishes that a group of similar objects shares a common characteristic The dogs belonging to Elise, Jorge, Kim and Dave all became better-behaved upon turning four. 2) It establishes that a particular object is similar to the objects in that group Melanie's dog is similar to the others: it's a dog, and it's about to turn four. 3) It concludes that the particular object will demonstrate the characteristic shared by the group Melanie's dog will probably become better-behaved once it turns four. The greater the similarities between the object in the conclusion and the objects in the premises, the stronger the argument by analogy is. For example, if the first part argument above instead read, " . . . all own female Chihuahuas that they bought from the same breeder and have owned for more than three years," and all of those traits also applied to Melanie's dog, we would have an even stronger reason to believe that the conclusion is true.
Arguments & Communication in the Classroom What Are the Most Effective Ways to Communicate in Class?
As a teacher, it's vital to be able to speak to and with your students in a way that's easy for them to follow and comprehend. When you're lecturing or otherwise talking to your students as a group, there are a few guidelines to keep in mind. Oral Presentations Several of the previous lessons in this section have discussed the elements of effective public speaking. They include: preparing the speech with a clear purpose and point of view constructing sound arguments using credible premises and reliable forms of reasoning employing simple, logical organization and a structure well-suited to the speech's topic and purpose selecting audience-specific diction and vocabulary engaging delivery, including appropriate pacing, volume and nonverbal interaction There are some additional guidelines particular to speeches and presentations in the classroom that enhance the accessibility of educational presentations. Specifically, Repetition The main point should be introduced early, synopsized late, and referred to regularly throughout the presentation Visual aids Photos, overheads, drawings or websites compliment and enhance the spoken message Duration Maximum time varies by age; be sure to stay within it; trim your topic if need be Organization Avoid digressions and tangents. Make an outline of a speech beforehand just like you would for an essay; stick to it Evidence Use engaging and humorous (and relevant!) stories and anecdotes; concrete examples bring abstract points to life
How Do Word Choice and Delivery Affect a Speech's Effectiveness?
Delivery and content are equally important to the success of an oral presentation. When you are listening to or evaluating a speech, pay careful attention not only to what the speaker is saying, but also to how the speaker is saying it. Word Choice and Phrasing Any given idea or position can be expressed in a wide variety of a ways. A good speaker will select the words and phrases that express his or her point of view in a way that is likely to resonate with the particular audience she or he is addressing. Consider the following, one of the most oft-quoted orations in American history: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry, speech to Virginia 's House of Burgesses, 23 Mar. 1775 Contrast Henry's famous turn-of-phrase with the following mouthful: Are we so attached to our mode of existence as presently constituted and so averse to the prospect of armed combat as to waive our right to oppose legislation that functions to restrict substantially our legal and social standing? I hope not. Far be it from me to presume to dictate a course of action to anyone else, but the only legal and political structure I can countenance is one of unfettered self-governance. Though the literal meaning of both passages is virtually identical, Henry's version is obviously more effective. Why? He is economical in his wording. He frames the position he opposes in emotionally loaded terms ("as tantamount to embracing slavery"). His parting line encapsulates his argument with a pithy, memorable slogan. Awareness of word choice is crucial to formulating an informed and insightful evaluation of a speech or oral presentation. As you listen to a speech that you need to criticize or assess, you should ask yourself the following questions: Is the speaker's diction and vocabulary appropriate to the audience? Is the speaker presenting the material in a factually accurate manner? Is the speaker efficient and word-economical, getting quickly to the point and avoiding rambling and digressions? In a persuasive speech, has the speaker selected emotional and descriptive words and phrases that will resonate with the audience and leave a lasting impression? In an informative speech, has the speaker presented the material using understandable vocabulary and a logical, easy-to-follow order?
How Do You Identify a Speaker's Point of View?
Identifying a speaker's point of view toward the subject matter of his or her speech is one of the keys to gaining a complete and nuanced understanding of the speech. Point of view is a speaker's attitude or position toward the subject matter of his or her speech. Recognizing a speaker's point of view goes hand in hand with recognizing and identifying a speech's tone, its emotional quality, and manner of expression. The Gettysburg Address owes much of its fame to Lincoln's deftness in articulating a widely shared point of view: he humbly and eloquently pays homage to the fallen soldiers while reminding listeners of the nobility of the cause for which the soldiers died. To recognize a speaker's point of view, it helps to first characterize the emotional tenor of the speech. Almost all speakers' points of view fall under one of these three broad headings: Negative Neutral Positive You would group The Gettysburg Address under the positive heading. Even though the speech is not lighthearted or upbeat, Lincoln's attitude toward his material is respectful and appreciative. Once you've broadly characterized a speaker's point of view, you can move toward a more specific description. A wide range of more specific terms fits under each of those three headings. For example, each of the following might be a more specific characterization of a point of view that you initially labeled "positive." Irrationally exuberant Respectful, appreciative Measured support Cautiously optimistic Reluctant approval Obviously there is a vast difference between a speaker who is enthused and excited about a topic and one who is cautiously optimistic about it. However, beginning with a general characterization focuses your thinking and makes it easier to arrive at one of these tailored descriptions.
3. Improper Appeal to Authority
Improper Appeal to authority is an argument in which a speaker claims that a conclusion should be accepted as true simply because a person who has no special knowledge of the claim says it is true. In the previous lesson, the following was cited as an example of a legitimate appeal to authority: People should wash their hands regularly because doctors say doing so prevents disease. This is a legitimate appeal to authority because doctors have specialized knowledge of what causes diseases to spread. It makes sense for this argument to refer to the consensus opinion of doctors. Contrast that argument with this one: You should buy a Honda the next time you buy a car. The doctor who lives across the street told me Honda makes the best cars. This is an improper appeal to authority because we have no reason to believe that a medical doctor is particularly knowledgeable about automotive manufacturing. The key difference between a legitimate argument by authority and a fallacious one is the relationship between the authority's area of expertise and the subject matter of the argument.
How Do You Identify the Different Parts of an Argument?
Most arguments take one of two structures. Either the conclusion comes first, and the premises follow, or the conclusion is the final statement and the premises lead up to it. It is less common for a conclusion to appear sandwiched between premises, though it is not unheard of. As a result, distinguishing between the parts of an argument requires an understanding of the logical relationship between them. What proposition is the speaker or writer trying to advance as true? How do other statements offer support for that proposition? One way to hone in on that logical relationship is to ask two questions: What is it that this speaker or writer wants me to accept as true? (i.e., what is the main point or conclusion?) Why? (What statements has she made in support of that conclusion?) Another, more concrete way to identify premises and conclusions is by looking for indicator words. Conclusion indicators are words whose presence signals that the statement that follows is likely to be a conclusion. Some of the most common examples of conclusion indicators include: Thus Therefore As a result Hence Consequently So Accordingly Which means/demonstrates/proves that ... Premise indicators are words that often precede statements offered in support of a conclusion. For example: Because Since Due to As Given that In view of the fact For Whereas In the previous argument, the statement "my rent is about to go up" is what's known as a subordinate or secondary conclusion, a statement that is the main point of a small argument that also functions as a premise in a larger argument. The premise supporting this subordinate conclusion is the statement "Because there's a new mall in the area." However, in the larger argument, the subordinate conclusion also functions as a premise in support of the main conclusion: "Because . . . my rent is about to go up . . . I don't think I should renew my lease." You can click here to practice identifying the various parts of an argument in a more complicated passage.
How Can Students Practice Formulating Oral Arguments?
Public speaking and debate can serve as useful adjuncts to persuasive writing as methods for teaching students the basics of speaking, reasoning, and argumentation. However, unstructured, free-form debates often devolve into shouting matches between the most outspoken and opinionated students. The two forms of structured debate most commonly used to teach public speaking and analytical skills are the Lincoln-Douglas debate and the cross-examination debate. Lincoln-Douglas debate Lincoln-Douglas debates take place between two individuals who debate the moral and ethical value of a resolution, a statement that proposes a policy action. For example, students around the country recently debated this resolution: Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. One side, the affirmative, opens the debate. The first affirmative speech (called a constructive) begins by stating a value that would be served by affirming the given resolution and proposing a criterium to measure or achieve that value. In effect, the value and the criteria are the speech's main conclusion, and the rest of the first affirmative speech is spent making contentions, arguments that support the value of upholding the resolution. The other side, the negative, also proposes a value and criteria, but the negative argues that the value is best served by negating the given resolution. The negative's first speech not only establishes independent arguments in favor of negating the resolution, but it also refutes each of the arguments the affirmative has offered. After each of the first two speeches, there is a cross-examination period in which the debaters question each other directly. In the remaining speeches, called rebuttals, the two debaters attempt to refute the other's arguments and show that he or she best upheld his or her value. Click here for more detailed information on the format of the LD debate.
