Detailed Notes on Persuasive Speaking and Fallacies

Key Concepts of Persuasive Speaking

  • Definition: Persuasive speaking aims to influence the beliefs, attitudes, values, or behaviors of the audience.

Components of an Argument

  1. Claim:

  • The statement that is supported by evidence.

  • Your thesis statement serves as the overarching claim for the speech, with additional supporting claims throughout.

  • Example: "There should be a national law against texting while driving."

  1. Evidence (Grounds):

  • The support provided for the claim, composed of the main points and supporting materials.

  • Example: "Research from the US Department of Transportation has found that texting while driving creates a crash risk that is twenty-three times worse than driving while not distracted."

  1. Warrant:

  • The underlying justification that connects the claim and evidence.

  • Example: The credibility of the US Department of Transportation and the moral implication that people should avoid unsafe behaviors.

Strategies for Choosing a Persuasive Speech Topic

  • Importance of Topic Selection: Influenced by factors such as currency, controversy, and societal implications.

Tips for Choosing a Persuasive Topic

  1. Current Topics:

  • Not Current: "People should use seat belts."

  • Current: "People should not text while driving."

  1. Controversial Topics:

  • Not Controversial: "People should recycle."

  • Controversial: "Recycling should be mandatory by law."

  1. Impactful Topics:

  • Not Impactful: "Superman is the best superhero."

  • Impactful: "Colleges and universities should adopt zero-tolerance bullying policies."

  1. Writing a Thesis Statement:

  • Unclear Thesis: "Homeschooling is common in the United States."

  • Clear Argumentative Thesis: "Homeschooling does not provide the same benefits of traditional education and should be strictly monitored and limited."

Fallacies of Reasoning

  • Definition: A fallacy is an error in reasoning, often due to faulty assumptions.

Common Fallacies

  1. Sweeping Generalization:

  • Drawing conclusions based on limited examples.

  • Example: Concluding all family members are academically gifted from observing only two.

  1. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc:

  • Assuming a causal relationship between two sequential events without evidence.

  • Example: Classmate crying after a teacher interaction does not imply reprimand.

  1. Poisoning the Well/Ad Hominem:

  • Discrediting an argument based on the person's history.

  • Example: Dismissing a professor’s lecture due to past academic failures.

  1. Appeal to Authority:

  • Relying solely on authority figures without evaluating the argument's merits.

  1. Ad populum:

  • Majority belief does not determine correctness.

  1. False Analogy:

  • Incorrectly comparing two unlike concepts as if they were similar.

  • Example: Comparing governance to playing a basketball game.

  1. False Dichotomy:

  • Presenting only two choices as if they are the only options available.

  • Example: Lobbyists disagreeing with a policy are not necessarily unpatriotic; they may have better alternatives.