Barbara Jordans Use of Ethical Appeals - Essay Example

1. Barbara Jordan’s use of ethical appeals: Jordan used several types of appeals in her speech, three of which are pathos, ethos, and mythos. Pathosis an emotion-based appeal that seeks to evoke positive or negative feelings in the audience in order to prove a point. Jordan gives the audience the insight that the phrase, “We, the people” that opens the text of the Constitution did not use to include people like her, the blacks. There is an implicit tug on the emotions as one realizes that this woman, once deprived by society, is still willing to defend the constitutions that at one time did not contemplate her race. Ethos is another type of appeal that presents the good character of the speaker as proof of the point being made. “My faith in the Constitution is whole…and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, subversion, destruction of the Constitution…” Jordan puts herself forth as an example of a good American citizen. Mythos is an appeal founded on cultural values. She stresses the contrast between “a president grown tyrannical” versus the “preservation of the independence of the executive” as one of the time-honored distinctions made by the democratic American. 2. Three types of propositions discussed in Chapter 6: The first is the proposition of fact, which deals with alleged facts which are debatable or inconclusive. An example of this is the allegation that: “The police power of stop and search is used by police officers to discriminate against members of the black race.” The second is the proposition of value, which treats on the morality, rightness, merit or worth of an idea or an action. This is illustrated by the statement: “Abortion is the taking of human life and is thus a crime.” The third is the proposition of policy, which encourages an audience to agree with an idea or to take an action. It goes beyond making a categorical statement and espouses the adoption of a policy or the pursuit of a course of action. An example of this type of proposition is: “Millionaires who lost their jobs in the recent recession should not be allowed to claim welfare.” 3. The six steps in building an argument: There are six steps to building an argument. The first step is to develop a proposition. The proposition is that central idea that you would wish to convince your audience of, and it is best stated in a clear, declarative statement. Second, lay out a variety of compelling and coherent evidence. The evidence must be directly supportive of the proposition, not only tangentially related to it. Also, the evidence must have a clear connection in the mind of the audience, based on their level of understanding and experience, so as to be convincing of the topic proposed. Third, after laying out the evidence, draw a logical conclusion springing from that evidence. It is important to bring the logical relationship full circle, by tying in the evidences to the proposition. Fourth, use the four types of proof throughout the argument. These include logos, pathos, ethos and mythos. Logos creates inferences through reasoning, pathos appeals to the emotions, ethos calls on the speaker’s good character to vouch for the correctness of his proposition, and mythos draws on cultural values as the basis for supporting the proposition. Fifth, anticipate any opinions that oppose your proposition and arguments, and offer a rebuttal to refute the opposition. The speaker must be prepared by doing his research beforehand on the most common objections to the proposition. Sixth, try to offer novel evidence to further strengthen your rebuttal. Novel evidence is something your audience has not yet encountered in other venues. The novelty of the evidence may surprise your audience, and oppositors are usually not prepared to address a new proof. 4. The main purpose of persuasion is to get the listeners to revise or reinforce their beliefs or their behaviours. The two principles undergirding the persuasive process are: firstly, that persuasive speaking is designed to influence; and secondly, that persuasive speeches require special attention to ethical issues. Some examples that the speech used are: (1) the reinforcement, or revision, of the listener’s belief, in favor of the proposition that tofu is better than beef; (2) that “red herring” is a type of fallacy where something is introduced that is inflammatory, but has nothing at all to do with the proposition, to which is offered as example the case of Clinton not being charged with sexual impropriety because he is doing a great job as president; and (3) an example of a persuasive speech is that delivered by Kennedy, wherein he asks his fellow Americans what they can do for their country, instead of asking what their country can do for them. 5. The proposition that the speech is making is that the picture Braveheart is an exceptionally good movie. This is a proposition of fact, because it offers up a factual allegation (i.e., that Braveheart is a good motion picture) for the consideration and, hopefully, agreement of the audience. The argument made use of proofs that generally fell into two categories, namely logos and ethos. Examples of logos were the statements of the speaker that the scenery, costumes, and depiction are well done. Ethos, on the other hand, is evident in the use of a quotation of Gary Arnold of the Washington Times, to prove that the portrayal of Patrick McGoohan in the movies is good. The argument thus presented was not very compelling or convincing, because the speech fails to provide motivation for the audience to change their belief. The pattern the speech uses is causal, because the speaker, throughout the video, concentrated on the different aspects that resulted in Braveheart becoming a good movie. As to the speech’s accomplishment, I am not convinced that the speech is the best possible that could be done on the video. As already mentioned, the speech does not create a strong desire in the listener to embrace the proposition. Motivation is lacking for the audience to feel convinced that the movie Braveheart is a movie exceptional than most. The speaker just did not create in the mind of the listener the importance of believing in the proposition. Andrew Dool My speech was a bit difficult to listen to because of the low volume in the vocal delivery quality. I think this affected the effectiveness of my introduction, which was not as attention getting as I intended, but which has a strong thesis statement. I believe there is a marked improvement between my previous speech and this one. Although in my body language I tend to still show some nervousness, I address my audience more directly with better eye contact, and do not appear as if I were reading my notes directly, unlike the first speech. The topic of my speech was interesting and well defined from the beginning, and the evidences given in the speech have a strong connection to the main topic. I believe I could still improve in the manner I connect with the audience, especially if I could use better visual aids than what I had used this time. I will try to appear more relaxed and spontaneous and not come through as nervous or unprepared, which was my delivery mistake, as sometimes I tended to briefly lack focus and felt like fumbling for my notes. In the other two speeches analyzed below, the speakers appeared more in touch with the audience, and more spontaneous in their delivery. With eventual and more frequent speaking opportunities, I believe I could develop the same facility they have. Kevin Boyko Kevin’s introduction appeared weak because it failed to grab attention or fix the material in the minds of his audience. Kevin’s speaking style and vocal delivery is relaxed and conversational, except for his frequent use of the word “and”, a vocal interrupter which is discouraged as a vocal mistake in Chapter 5. Kevin maintains good body language through constant eye contact with his audience and appears to interact well with them. There is a smooth flow of ideas and his transition from one part of the speech to the next is well done. There are portions of his speech, however, where he shows overall delivery mistakes, looking a bit uncertain and looks into his notes a bit too long, and as his speech progressed, a bit too often. His frequent hand gestures also show a bit of nervousness, as they appear less as deliberate actions to stress a point, and more as a mannerism to help the speaker get through the material he is delivering. His frequent mention of the word “and” also appears to be a sign of nerves. His volume and tone are good, and the points he was making were interesting, although he failed to mention early what particular aspect about Spain he wanted to discuss. The speech stressed the differences between life in another country, which did not make any point in particular. The problem with the speech was its lack of coherence, of arriving at a strong point to discuss. Furthermore, his visual aid was rather small and could not be seen by the audience as he held it rather obliquely. Kyle Breniser Kyle’s vocal delivery had a strong beginning, in terms of volume and tone of voice. His topic was about Guatemala, and his use of a visual aid, the map of Guatemala, helped fix the topic in the minds of his audience. Unfortunately, it is not certain from Kyle’s introduction in his speech just what about Guatemala he wanted to discuss.. His facts went through topics which, while related to the general topic of Guatemala such as its history and demographics, did little to advance the point of Guatemala’s poverty condition, which he hinted at one point that he wanted to discuss. The speaker eventually came to the topic of poverty already halfway through the speech. When he did get to talk about poverty, it was more about how different life there was from life in the United States, and that there was an absence of the standard conveniences that can be found in the U.S. I think this is a major overall delivery mistake on his part, an obvious lack of focus as expressed in Chapter 5, and his body language showed it towards the end, conveying that he was distracted. The same is true about his comment of the way Guatemalans dress, such as children walking around without shoes in the mountains, which seemed an incidental because some cultures really walk about barefooted. His eventual mention of malnutrition, nearly two-thirds of the way through the speech, was the first important evidence he presented that had a direct connection to poverty. While Kyle’s body language looked confident and delivered his speech rather well, maintaining good eye contact as in Chap. 5; unfortunately the speech appeared to lack the proper proof that better research would have provided it. The regular consumption of tortillas also has little bearing on the poverty situation, as it could have been a culture thing. Kyle probably should have mentioned if tortillas was all the people ate. Read More