>> Okay, welcome back.
We're going to go ahead and finish up with Chapter 17, Methods of Persuasion.
So we'll pick up with fallacies here.
Okay, so fallacies are really breakdowns in reasoning.
And I'm going to go over some of the most common, but these are,
this is by no means an exhaustive list.
And each of these types of fallacies kind of have subtypes below them.
So we could spend hours and hours just going over fallacies,
but we'll just go over the main ones here.
First, hasty generalization, false cause, invalid analogies, red herrings,
ad hominem attacks, either-or, bandwagon, and the slippery slope fallacy.
So hasty generalizations.
This is jumping to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
"The student didn't do well on the first quiz, so they'll probably fail the course."
Seems pretty reasonable to me as an instructor.
Sure would save a heck of a lot of time.
I mean, if you failed the first quiz, if I just fail you now and get rid of you, you know,
it'd make my life a lot easier, you know, in the -- no, that would be ridiculous.
What's the problem with this?
Well, the first quiz in my class is really, first chapter quiz is worth one-half
of one percent of your overall grade.
That is by no means nearly enough information, nearly enough data to make a conclusion.
Now, if I said the student didn't do well on the first ten quizzes or the midterm
and failed both speeches, so they'll probably fail the course, you know what?
That's a lot more information, and I can make the generalization.
But too little evidence in this statement here.
False cause: mistakenly assuming that because one event follows the other,
the first caused the second.
"I'm sure the stock market will rise this year.
It usually goes up after the American League wins the World Series."
Yeah, not only do, does, you know, one not cause the other.
The two don't even have the same root cause.
This would just be coincidence.
But if we actually think about it, I'm sure the stock market will rise.
Well, the stock market can only do one of three things.
It could go up, it could go down, or it could stay the same.
Chances are it's not going to stay the same throughout the year, so it'll go up or down,
and as far as who wins the World Series,
it's going to be the American League or the National League.
So you really have a 25% chance of being right on this.
Okay, invalid analogies: "The two cases being compared are not essentially alike."
"Of course Lisheng can prepare great Italian food; his Chinese cooking is fabulous."
That's racist, [laughs] but this doesn't work because, just because someone can cook one type
of food doesn't necessarily mean that they could cook all types of food.
And we see this if we watch, like, the cooking shows --
Chopped, or Iron Chef, or any of those --
sometimes different types of foods can throw people off.
And if we look at these two specifically, Italian food
and Chinese food really use vastly different ingredients, and different spices,
and different cooking methods, so, yeah, probably not the case.
Red herring introduces irrelevant issues to divert attention from the actual subject.
And red herring, this is where, if you read in your book, this comes from the old days
of fox hunts, where they would release a fox, and then release the hounds to go chase the fox,
and then dudes on horses would chase the hounds who were chasing the fox.
It sounds like "I knew an old woman who swallowed a fly" kind of thing,
but what would happen is the fox would run across farmers' fields,
and then the dogs would run across farmers' fields, and then the horses would run
across farmers' fields, and the farmers' fields would get trashed.
So what farmers would do is they would take a red herring, which is a fish,
tie a string to it, and walk it around the outside of the field.
So what would happen is when the fox ran through the field, the dogs would get to the edge
of the field, smell the herring, and go off in the wrong direction.
And then, the horses would go off in the wrong direction, and the field would be safe.
So introducing irrelevant issues to divert attention from the actual subject.
"How dare my opponents accuse me of corruption when we are working to improve life
for all people in the United States."
Starting with me, with the corruption?
Yeah, so the real issue there is the corruption, but the red herring is that we're trying
to improve life for all people in the United States.
I don't want to get political here, but I think if you look at politics in general
and politics right now specifically, you'll see a lot of red herrings, especially on Twitter.
[laughs] So red herring.
So whenever you see that, just think of a stinky, little fish.
Ad hominem: attacking the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
The head of the commerce commission has several interesting proposals,
but don't forget she comes from a wealthy family.
Almost like a red herring where you're throwing out an irrelevant issue,
but it's a personal attack, so it becomes an ad hominem.
Now, I think if you're going to use an ad hominem attack, just do what President Trump did
in the primaries and go right for the face.
So in this example, the head of the commerce commission has several interesting proposals,
but don't forget she's ugly.
That would work.
Like he said with -- who was it?
-- Carly Fiorina, she can't be president.
That's not a presidential face.
Just look at that face.
Yeah, ad hominem attack there.
It's a fallacy.
Don't use it.
It doesn't work, especially when people identify it.
Either-or: "forcing listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two exist."
"The government must either raise taxes or reduce services for the poor."
Really? They have to do one or the other?
They can't do both?
They can't raise taxes and reduce services, or they can't leave taxes are and raise services?
Yeah, there's a lot of gray area and a lot of other things that we could do.
Very few things in life are either-or, and the only ones that I can really think of --
you're either pregnant or you're not.
You can go from being not pregnant to being pregnant, to being not pregnant,
but you're not a little bit pregnant.
The other one is death.
You're either alive or you're dead.
Now, you can go back and forth.
You can be alive, die, and then be brought back to life, but it's still,
nothing else is really either-or.
I guess, you know, in academia, you're passing or you're not.
[laughs] There's no a little bit passing.
That's passing or not.
But in general, not a lot of either-or there.
Bandwagon: "assuming that because something is popular, it is good or correct."
"The governor must be right; after all, polls show that 60 percent of the people support him."
Well, a couple of things here.
Yeah, 60% of the people might support the governor, but that really implies that 40%
of the people don't, so that's a lot of people.
And just because you support someone doesn't necessarily mean you think they're right
on a particular issue or all the time.
So just because a lot of people support someone doesn't necessarily mean they're right
because if we use this logic here, that means Walmart is the best retailer in the world
and sells the best products in the world because they certainly sell the most products
in the world, and that's, we know that's not necessarily the case.
They just happen to be maybe the most popular, and the cheapest, and the most convenient,
but they're not necessarily the best.
Okay, slippery slope: "assuming that taking a first step will lead
to later steps that cannot be prevented."
I love this example here: "Passing laws to control violence in video games will result
in complete government control of the media and total censorship of artistic expression."
So if we put a little M for mature on a video game, then the government is going
to come take your crayons away from you.
I don't think so.
The idea with this slippery slope is that if we start down the path, we're just going to slip
and fall right down to the end of it.
So we want to avoid those slippery slope fallacies.
Okay, and that brings us to pathos, and pathos is Aristotle's name for emotional appeals.
And these appeals are intended to make the listener feel --
feel sad, angry, happy, proud, et cetera.
And we use these a lot of times in ceremonial speeches because in ceremonial speeches,
we're doing that, we're doing them to kind of get an emotion out of someone.
We're using this to inspire the audience.
So pathos.
So how do you generate emotional appeals?
Use emotional language, and this is, goes back to that language chapter when we talk
about denotative and connotative meaning.
So know what the connotative meanings of words are and what's likely
to generate an emotional response.
Develop vivid examples.
Put the audience in your speech.
Put them in that situation, and they can relate to it.
Speak, again, with sincerity and conviction.
This goes a long way for getting the audience involved in your speech,
and believing in your speech, and all that.
Okay, so we'll see an example of using an ethical emotional appeal.
>> Nathan was only five years old when the fever struck him.
At first, no one knew what was wrong.
No one knew that parasites inside his body had infected his red blood cells.
No one knew those cells were clumping together, choking the flow of blood
through his body, and damaging his vital organs.
No one knew his kidneys would soon fail and seizures would begin.
No one knew he would wind up in a coma.
The parasites in Nathan's body came from a mosquito bite, a bite that gave him malaria.
And Nathan is not alone.
The World Health Organization tells us the horrible truth: In Africa,
a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds.
>> Okay, so when we're listening to this, she doesn't say,
some kid halfway around the world got a disease and died.
No, she says Nathan.
She gives him a name.
We relate to that.
We, maybe we don't know a Nathan, but it sounds
like a reasonable name that might be someone we know.
And he's just a poor child, and he has parasites.
Not, got bit by a mosquito.
Parasites.
Oh, parasites are scary.
It's one of those words that generates an emotion.
So she gives it to us a little bit at a time.
She draws us into it so then she can say malaria is this disease that kills people.
So she doesn't just start off with that.
She leads us into it.
So using the language and making that appeal.
Okay, you need to make sure that they are appropriate to the topic.
So don't substitute the emotional appeals for evidence and reasoning.
[laughs] Yeah.
So if you need logical support for your speech, then you need to do that.
Now, ceremonial speeches probably don't need a lot of statistics and evidence for that,
but if you're trying to persuade someone to change a policy or believe something, then yeah,
you probably do need evidence and reasoning as well as emotional appeals.
So which one should you use?
Should you use ethos, logos, or pathos?
And this is a trick question because you really need all of them
and you need to balance all of them.
You need the ethos because you need your audience to believe what you have to say.
You need the logos because that's what's going to sustain them
when they are listening to your speech.
It's going to be the thing that they remember.
And then pathos is going to be what's going to motivate them.
So without one of those, they're either not believing you, they're not following along
with what you're saying, or they're not motivated to believe you.
So you really need all of them.
So balance them for the best results.
Okay, so let's listen to a, an example of a persuasive speech here.
You've seen parts of this speech before, but we'll go through the whole thing.
>> A cold, dark room.
It smells disgusting.
The creatures in front of you shake uncontrollably.
Packed, one on top of another in tiny wire cages.
To eat, they have only crumbs in front of them, and to drink, only a dirty bowl of water.
Many have eye problems, ear problems, diseases, and infections.
They've never been groomed.
They've never been for a walk.
And they've never seen the sun.
For too many dogs across America, this is how life begins -- in a puppy mill.
Puppy mills, as defined by the Humane Society of the United States,
are mass dog breeding operations that take place in shockingly poor conditions.
Puppy mill breeders produce puppies for profit, only for profit, with little or no concern
for the physical, social, or emotional needs of the dogs.
As a dog lover, I was shocked to discover the horrors of puppy mills
across the country as I researched this speech.
I know from my audience analysis questionnaires that most of you had a dog
or another pet while you were growing up
and that you believe they should be treated humanely.
Today, I'll show you that puppy mills are not treating animals humanely,
and I'll suggest some ways of solving the problem.
Puppy mills have been around for a long time, but they've grown dramatically in recent years.
The Humane Society estimates that there are more
than 10,000 puppy mills currently operating in the United States.
According to Stephanie Shain, the Society's Director of Outreach for Companionable Animals,
of the seven to nine million dogs sold in this country each year,
two to four million come from puppy mills.
That's double the number from only a decade ago.
Rather than producing the healthy, happy pets that millions of families dream of,
puppy mills produce dogs with canine herpes, respiratory infections,
parasites, seizures, and E. coli.
Dogs that are lucky enough to escape these diseases often have rotten teeth, missing eyes
or limbs, hip disorders, skin problems, and a host of other deformities.
In addition to suffering from physical problems,
dogs in puppy mills are often emotionally unstable.
Some are dangerously violent and aggressive.
Others are apathetic and lack any desire to interact with people or animals.
Because of the overcrowding of puppy mills, some animals literally go crazy
and chew off the ears, legs, and tails of other dogs.
But you can see for yourself what the dogs have to endure.
Here's a picture of a puppy mill provided by the U.S. Humane Society.
As you can see, the cages are stacked one on top of another and the dogs are packed
into the cages like sardines into a can.
The dogs are not let out to go to the bathroom, so the cages are filled with waste
and become breeding grounds for the diseases I mentioned earlier in my speech.
You can get a better sense of how disgusting a puppy mill is from this photo,
taken after the dogs were removed by animal officials.
You can see how narrow the cages are and how they're crammed one against the other.
You can see that there's filth and debris everywhere.
Finally, take a look at a couple of individual dogs.
The first one came from a puppy mill here in Wisconsin.
It was so malnourished that it couldn't stand up by itself,
and it had lost the fur on almost all of its body.
The next dog was in even worse shape.
Covered with its own filth, it had a rash of infections and diseases,
and it had lost the sight in one eye.
Like other puppy mill dogs, it never saw a veterinarian until it was rescued.
It's time that we stop the horrors of puppy mills and help dogs and dog owners alike.
Solving the problem requires action on two fronts -- legislation and individual initiative.
The first step is for new laws that will put puppy mills out of business.
Current laws, such as the Animal Welfare Act, are ineffective at best.
This law only regulates a small number of breeders,
leaving countless puppy mills to operate under the radar.
Here's the legislation I propose.
It's based on a combination of proposals that have been presented in several states.
All dog breeders who produce more than 30 puppies a year should be required to register
with their state's Department of Agriculture, which would inspect dog-breeding facilities just
as the health department inspects restaurants.
Breeders with dogs in substandard conditions would be dealt with accordingly.
A first offense would result in a fine of $3000.
A second offense would result in a fine of $5000.
And a third offense would result in a fine of $10,000 and 90 days in jail, plus permanent loss
of the breeder's license in every state of the union.
But legislation alone won't do the job.
You and I also have a part to play.
We have to take the profit out of puppy mills
by making sure we don't purchase dogs produced by puppy mills.
We can do this by following guidelines laid out by the Humane Society.
First, consider adopting a dog from a trusted animal shelter instead of buying a new dog.
The animal shelter will make sure the dog is free of physical and behavioral problems.
Second, if you decide to buy a new dog, visit the breeder's premises.
If the breeder refuses to let you see the premises or wants you
to meet somewhere else, don't buy from that breeder.
Third, don't buy a dog from a pet store.
The Humane Society has found that most dogs in pet stores actually come from puppy mills.
And fourth, don't be fooled by advertising.
Just because an ad promises that a dog has been, quote, "family raised"
or has a health certificate doesn't mean it's true.
This is especially important when it comes to the internet, where there is no way
to verify the health of a dog or the trustworthiness of a breeder.
In conclusion, I'd like you to imagine your own pet, no matter what kind of animal it might be,
living in the conditions endured by dogs in puppy mills.
Then, imagine your pet living in those conditions day after day,
week after week, month after month.
Surely, you would not want this for your own pet.
Yet, even as we sit here, millions of dogs are suffering from the horrors of puppy mills.
It's time to stop puppy mill breeders from profiting on their cruelty.
Even if, as the movie title says, all dogs go to heaven,
we should not allow them to start their lives in hell.
[ Applause ]
>> Okay. So you can see with this example here, he did a lot of the things that we talked about.
He used emotional appeals with that introduction.
He established his own credibility by saying he was a dog owner.
He used statistics and testimony from the Humane Society.
He used pictures to enhance that emotional appeal.
It was well organized.
So went through a lot of the things we talked about.
Really, most of the things we've talked about.
Okay, next time, since this is the last chapter, next time, sign up for Comm 201,
Advanced Public Speaking, if you see it on the schedule, or Comm 104,
Advocacy and Argumentation, where you'll spend a lot more time on things like [laughs] logos,
and fallacies, and all that kind of stuff, but it is a good class.
Or if you liked all of this, specifically the persuasive part of it,
take Comm 160, Debate and Forensics Activities.
Okay, it's been a pleasure.
Have a nice rest of the semester, and good luck with finals.