Information

Motivations

Compare

• Anaphora: repetition of a word or words at the beginning of two or more sentences or clauses.
  

• Antithesis: two opposite or ideas that are introduced in a parallel way.

• Chiasmus: reversal in the order of words in two parallel phrases.

• Climax: the last part of a clause is the same as the beginning of the next clause.

• Dialysis: offers only two choices.

• Idiom: two words that when combined have a meaning of their own.

• Metaphor: comparison.

• Metonymy: uses the part to describe a whole.

• Multiple-yoking: a single subject is accompanied by multiple verbs, usually arranged in a parallel series.

• Self-answering questions: rhetorical questions that are asked and soon answered.

• Speak-around: the use of more words than necessary to express an idea.

• Synecdoche: a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part.

Deadly Sins

Fallacy: the use of poor reasoning for an argument.

1. False Comparison: two things are similar so they must be the same.
• The all natural fallacy: some natural things are good for you so everything that is natural is good for you.
• The appeal to popularity: other kids get to do it, so why don't I?
• Reduction ad absurdum: compares a logical choice with a ridiculous choice.
• The fallacy of antecedent: false comparison related to time.
• The false analogy: joins two different things and calls them the same. 
• The unit fallacy: does weird math with two different things, often confusing the part for the whole.
2. Bad Example: the example used to prove the argument.
• The hasty generalisation: uses too few examples and interprets them too broadly.
• Misinterpreting the evidence: takes the exception and uses it to prove the rule.
3. Ignorance as Proof: the argument claims that the lack of examples proves that something does not exist.
• The fallacy of ignorance: because something has never been disproved it must be true.
• Superstitions: the belief in supernatural casualty or that one event causes another without them being linked.
4. Tautology: the proof and the conclusion are the same. 
5. False Choice: the number of choices given is not the number of choices that exist. 
• The many questions fallacy: it squeezes two or more issues into a single one.
• The false dilemma fallacy: offers the audience two or more choices when more exist.
6. Red Herring: distracts the audience to make them forget what the main issue is about.
• The straw man fallacy: sets up a different issue that is easier to argue, or more favorable for the other person.
7. Wrong Ending: fails to lead to the conclusion.
• The slippery slope: predicts a dire series of events stemming from a single choice.
• The post hoc ergo propter hoc or the Chanticleer fallacy: assumes that if something follows something else then the first caused the second.

• Another Logical mistake
• The fallacy of power: if the person in charge wants it, it must be good.

• The seven rhetorical out-of-bounds:

1. Switching tenses away from the future.
2. Inflexible insistence on the rules: refusing to hear the other side.
3. Humiliation: seeks to embarras others, or win points for yourself.
4. Innuendo: if you object to it, you look like a fool. An implication or hint, a suggestion.
5. Threats: it denies the audience a choice.
6. Nasty language or signs.
7. Utter stupidity: "Never argue with a fool, people may not know the difference."

Chanticleer fallacy

The fallacy of antecedent

All natural fallacy

The false analogy

Hasty generalisation

Superstitions/Supernatural

The many questions fallacy

The false dilemma fallacy

Sneaky

Humor is a very tricky form of rhetoric. The it involves persuading the audience in a very sneaky way, without them knowing. If you find something entertaining or amusing then it is much easier to persuade you. Laughter can enhance ethos if used properly. Urbane humor is sophisticated and allusive, it requires previous knowledge or context. Wit is situational humor, it is clever and often uses irony. Facetious humor is used to 'break the ice', it is used mainly to make people laugh. Banter is aimed at someone or something, it's retaliation, or 'snapping back', it uses concession to throw the other persons argument back at them.

Storytelling is when you use a well-told narrative that allows the audience to imagine the experience, most effectively when it reminds them of their own past experiences and if it is told in the first person. Experience is what the audience believes happened in the past and expectation is what they think will happen in the future. To make it much more potent it is important to include things that the audience does not expect. Also in order to capture their attention it is crucial to show feelings and sensations. However too much sensation is not effective.

With a lot of feelings the persuader tends to get off track and become subjective, so it is important to have self-control. Another way to make it even more effective is with volume control. Using this you underplay the emotion, seeming to have a hard time controlling your emotions and later let some more emotions out, gradually and moderately. It is important to use simple speech, and not so many fancy words. Elaborate speech is more for ethos and logos, while plain, basic and modest speech is more pathetic.

To control your audience's emotions use different techniques. Using backfire you are able to calm their emotions by overplaying them yourself, this way they don't feel them as strongly. To direct their anger someone, show that persons lack of concern for their problems. Using passive voice you can direct their anger away from someone, imply things happened on their own. By comparing the audience to a successful rival to control their sense of group identity or patriotism. Emulation is when your audience imitates you, with more ethos your audience imitates you more. With unannounced emotion you sneak up on your audience and they are less capable and less likely to resist the emotion

Penguins Logic

In order to win an argument you need to control it. The most important tools to compare an argument are commonplaces, deductive logic, and inductive logic.

Commonplaces are things that are widely believed or accepted. For example, a commonplace that my mom used to tell me when I was young, "You can't swim right after eating because you will get sick." Commonplace words are words that affect the audiences emotions. Depending on the connotation of the words, whether its negative like "chatty" or "pushy", or positive like "friendly" or "expressive".

Deductive logic starts with a premise or a commonplace, then it goes into specifics, and then theres a conclusion. An example of this would be: "Vegetarians don't eat meat. Veronica is a vegetarian. Therefore, Veronica doesn't eat meat." This is deductive logic because it begins with a fact, 'vegetarians don't eat meat', something that is widely known and accepted. Then it goes into a specific fact that can be debated, and not everyone might believe, and it closes with a conclusion that connects the two.

On the other hand, inductive logic takes specific cases and uses them to prove a premise or a conclusion. An example of inductive logic would be: "Miranda is an Ice skater. Ice skaters are thin and tall. Therefore, Miranda is thin and tall." This is inductive reasoning because it begins with a specific case, 'Miranda is and Ice skater'. Then it goes into the general belief that all ice skaters are thin and tall, and finishes with the conclusion that 'Miranda is thin and tall'.

Premise: something that the audience knows or believes.

Debating

This Summer I was at the Global Young Leaders Conference. We spent a lot of time debating our points of view on different topics, trying to change each other's thoughts, to make them more like ours. Now I realise that some of the best arguments had ethos (appeal to character), pathos (appeal to emotions) and logos (appeal to logic). Thinking back on my arguments  I remember that on one particular discussion I had, in which I was able to convince my friend of what I thought, I used all three of them.

We were discussing whether it was better for a country to intervene in a conflict that it was not involved in, or simply provide the means needed for the country with the conflict, to solve it on its own.
"Think about all the times that the US has intervened in a country that had a conflict, most times the intervention has lead to more violence and resistance because peace could not be forced by an outside party that didn't know what the country was going through. Specially if the country that intervene's has its own agenda, a clear example is El Salvador," I said, "Think about what happened there, think about the kids who got recruited by the american soldiers to join the army. How do you think they felt, when apart from there being a war with the guerrilla in their country, foreigners came in to 'stop the violence and to help' but only made it worse, because they had other priorities that could benefit them more."
"Yeah, but you can't just let them keep killing each other" She responded.
"I know, but at some point they will have to stop on their own, maybe its important to push them to use the means we can provide for them, but going in and forcing peace in a way that works for another country might not work for that one."

They are also used in advertisements.

Decorum is being able to meet your audiences expectations in order to agree with you. Concession is using your opponents argument to your own advantage.  On a speech given by a 15 year old girl for the UN in 2008, the girl uses both decorum and concession. She uses their arguments to prove her point and adjusts the way she speaks to meet they way they would, treating them like important members of an international organisation, not like other people her own age.