Fallacies of relevance. Bad response.
Speaking to persuade: Motivating audiences with solid arguments and moving language
Curso 3 de 4 em Specialization Dynamic Public Speaking
In the professional realm, we need to be able to argue without being argumentative. Whether you are fundraising for a nonprofit, pitching a business proposal, or suggesting a change to company policy, you are making arguments. In making the case for your topic, you often want to raise awareness, identify a pressing problem, discuss appropriate solutions, and outline specific steps for the audience. To be persuasive, you must be clear (the audience may have little to no existing knowledge), you must be convincing (you are trying to sway the audience that your argument is valid), and you must be compelling (you are trying to motivate the audience enough so that they want to take specific actions). Persuasive speaking thus requires clarity, strategy, topic mastery, plus a sense of style and presence. By the end of this course, you should be able to design persuasive speeches that address problems and solutions and that motivate audience members. You should be able to use rhetorical style strategically and deliver passionate and compelling speeches. Learners will record speeches, providing and receiving peer feedback.
Strategic and motivational language
In this module, we'll move from persuasive ideas to a completed argument and speech draft. I think everyone should take the time to become familiar with the fallacies discussed in this module. Globally, the quality of argumentation and reasoning would be better if everyone had a stronger grasp of these concepts. As you well know, persuasion isn't just argument - it's also the crafting of strategic and stylistic language. When people think about the most famous speeches in history, they tend to think of stylistically rich speeches. By the end of the week, you will have a list of strategies for avoiding fallacies and framing your case strategically and stylistically. If you want some feedback, you’ll be able to upload a persuasive speech outline for peer review and engage in some speech writing.
That doesn’t sound right! Avoiding fallacies.2:50
Fallacies of reasoning. Something is missing4:21
Fallacies of reasoning. Flawed causality.3:32
Fallacies of relevance. Bad evidence.3:17
Fallacies of relevance. Bad response.3:54
Dr. Matt McGarrity
UW Department of Communication
In fallacies of relevance, something is or is perceived as unclear in the argument.
Now in this video we're going to talk about fallacies of reasoning where
the audience perceives the claim to be irrelevant to the matter at hand.
So what are a couple of these?
Well, we can start with straw argument.
Now in a straw argument the audience perceives the speaker
to be attacking a fake arguments so here, straw argument's kind of a metaphor.
Instead of fighting a real opponent with nuanced views, the speaker just beats up
on a straw figure, something that actually can't fight in fact.
>> I cannot believe we did not approve the new bike path, Stupid.
>> I know it's a drug >> No it's just because people don't like
cyclists no it's because they are ignorant of the environmental impact of cars.
>> All right, all right dial it back a notch that's a bit much, okay.
People probably oppose bike paths for number of good reasons.
This is just characterizing those opinions in order to shoot them down.
And it's important to remember if you're actually trying to persuade people
with whom you disagree you need to be honest about how and
why they hold their opinions.
You know you need to meet that audience where they are.
Now a straw argument is mischaracterizing a position.
A red herring raises a distracting argument and we actually have a fairly
good case of this in the American experience, Richard Nixon.
So Nixon had run for the Senate in 1950 and after his election,
he had set up this special fund to support future campaign efforts.
This ended up with a travel allowance.
He ended up using that allowance in 1952, when he ran for vice president.
Now the press reported on this money use as ethically dubious.
Spoiler alert, he resigned from the presidency in utter disgrace.
But who knows?
Hey, that was years in the future.
Anyway, back in 1952, he took to the airwaves to defend himself against this
campaign fund charge, and he gave himself basically an on-air audit.
Now in the course of that audit he mentioned this.
>> One other thing I probably should tell you,
because if I don't they'll probably be saying about this me too.
We did get something, a gift, after the election.
A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two
youngsters would like to have a dog and believe it or not the day before we left
in this campaign trip, we got a message from Union station and
Baltimore saying they had a package for us.
You know what it was it was?
It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that eats all the way from Texas
black and white, spotted.
And our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers.
And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog.
And I just want to say this right now,
that regardless of what they say about it, we're going to keep him.
>> So obviously the press wasn't really concerned about the gift of
a puppy, right?
Some saw that reference to Checkers as a complete red herring.
Sort of a maudlin attempt to tug at the heartstrings of the public.
Now, Nixon supporters probably saw it as a relevant response.
And that reminds us again that fallacies exists on the page, but
they also exist in audiences' minds.
Now, historical importance aside, I think the most shocking part of that entire
story is that there was a farmer who just decided to put a dog in a box and
ship it thousands of miles on the hunch that the kids would keep the dog.
To return to the larger point, if your audience disagrees with you,
you need to remember that.
It is easy to hear a challenging argument as an irrelevant one.
Make sure you explain why your argument is on target.
Don't be heard as committing