Speech Chapter 2 Homework Though Specific Burdens Exist For Ceremonial Speeches

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document



Part 2, p. 98

OUTLINE WORKSHEET FOR GROUP PRESENTATION OPTION 1 TITLE:

Speakers:

Specific Purpose:

Intended Audience:

I. Introduction

A. Attention-getter:

B. Identify the intended audience:

C. Establishment of ethos:

II. Overview

A. Briefly describe the product or service.

(Internal summary)

(Transition)

III. Features and Benefits

A. Outline the features of your product. Group features in logical categories, and state the

benefit of each feature (use one slide per category).

(Internal summary)

(Transition)



Part 2, p. 99

IV. Applications

A. Discuss how the product or service can be used by different groups (giving real examples

when possible).

(Internal summary)

(Transition)

V. Specifications

A. For products, give relevant technical specifications (using as many slides as necessary).

B. For services, detail the terms and conditions under which the service is offered.

(Internal summary)

(Transition)

VI. Pricing

A. Detail the product models available, and list specific prices for each model and additional

options.

VII. Availability

A. List availability dates.

B. Describe where the product can be purchased, or where orders should be directed.

VIII. Conclusion

A. Summarize the major theme of the speech.



Part 2, p. 100

GROUP PRESENTATION OPTION 2

Introduction to Debate and Argumentation

By Philip D. Dalton

Introduction

People engage in different types of persuasive encounters and disagreements every day. From

political discussions to television advertisements, attempts are constantly being made to persuade

us to act or think differently. Unfortunately, as productive as these encounters can be, many of

them result in unproductive heated arguments.

Section I: Classifying Arguments

Stasis

The concept of stasis is used to help identify exactly why two parties in an argument disagree.

Stasis is the point at which agreement ends. It is the cause that generates, determines, and

characterizes a controversy (Loeb Dieter, 1950). To make this clearer, let’s visualize an argument

as two people walking toward each other on a catwalk. Once they meet, all movement stops. The



two people on the catwalk are forced to negotiate a way that will allow both parties to pass.

Similarly, in an argument stasis is the point at which mutual agreement halts. Once the point of

disagreement is clearly identified, the duties of the disagreeing parties are easier to deal with.

Another example demonstrates how a failure to identify the point of stasis can make a

disagreement unclear and unproductive. The 1996 presidential election dealt with the issue of

“building bridges.” President Bill Clinton claimed that he wanted to “build a bridge to the

twenty-first century.” Likewise, his opponent, Senator Bob Dole, asked people at the Republican

National Convention to allow him to be a “bridge to the past.” While it is clear that neither

candidate was actually proposing the construction of a time-bridge to take us ahead or back in

time, it is less clear what either of them hoped to accomplish. Because neither candidate managed

to state clearly what he wished to do as president, his opponent could not refute his position. The

point of stasis was never made clear. Similar situations arise with our parents, friends, or

roommates. Can you identify with the following conversation between two roommates?



Part 2, p. 102

Steve: I would take the trash out if I was the one putting trash in it. I don’t even stay here

anymore on account of the room being so messy.

Mike: You never liked me. You’re a jerk, and I’m glad you’re never here!

Here, what begins as a discussion about the cleanliness of a dorm room evolves into a barrage of

personal criticism. The original statement by Steve suggests that the disagreement revolves around

how clean the room should be or whether Mike should be making more of an effort to keep it clean.

In academic debates as well as in public and personal arguments, it is beneficial for both

parties to agree on what the point of stasis is. Intercollegiate debate associations propose

“resolutions,” which students then argue over in competition for an entire school year. The

resolution clearly identifies the duties of those who argue in favor of the proposal and those who

argue against the proposal. For instance, the Cross Examination Debate Association, a national

In public arguments, such as debates between candidates or policy arguments in the news,

points of stasis are usually made very clear. Primary and general election presidential debates are a

good example. Hopefuls for their party’s nomination use primary debates as a forum to

differentiate themselves from one another using points of stasis. For example, even though all the

Democratic presidential hopefuls might agree that the current health care system is inadequate,



Part 2, p. 103

Personal arguments also benefit from a clear identification of disagreement. Instead of

allowing the argument to wander, as Steve and Mike do in the example above, knowing exactly

CEREMONIAL, DELIBERATIVE, AND FORENSIC, AND FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY

Once two parties engaged in a discussion have decided precisely what they disagree over, it helps

to classify the disagreement. This section will describe two different ways to classify arguments

and the benefits of these classification schemes. The first scheme is ceremonial, deliberative, and

forensic. The classifications of this scheme were first identified by Aristotle (Lawson-Tancred,



Part 2, p. 104

First, let us look at ceremonial, deliberative, and forensic forms of argument. These three

categories are described as three different purposes for addressing an audience (Lawson-Tancred,

1991). Ceremonial speeches are primarily given for entertainment reasons. Examples of a

ceremonial speech include eulogies, toasts, introductions, and award presentations and

acceptances. Though it may seem unclear what argumentative role a ceremonial speech plays, in

1991). The U.S. Congress deliberates over the success or failure of policies. Legislators may argue

that the nation is headed toward either success or disaster. In either case, the future cannot be

known for certain. Instead, the success of an argument is based solely on the persuasiveness of the

arguer and his or her evidence. For example, let us pretend that the U.S. Senate is arguing over the

qualities of a new gun-control initiative. Senator Barbara Boxer has proposed a law that would

require gun owners to take competency tests. Topics of arguments on the floor of the Senate could

range from future ability to pay for the enforcement of this law to estimated reductions in

accidental shootings. The answers to either of these topics cannot be known for certain. Instead,



Part 2, p. 105

CEREMONIAL, DELIBERATIVE, AND FORENSIC, AND FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY

Forensic arguments are very different. Instead of dealing with future successes or failures, a

forensic arguer tries to establish the certainty of a past occurrence, or that a person definitely

performed a specific act. The television show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation centered around a

team of forensic scientists who employ scientific methods to determine the exact cause of people’s

deaths. The team is often able to identify who killed a murder victim, how, and with what weapon.

These three types of argument help arguers classify what they are discussing. If the parties

in an argument recognize that the argument is of a certain variety, they will better understand how

they differ, how their differences can be made clearer, and what responsibilities each arguer has to

“prove” his or her case.

Another way to categorize arguments is to classify them as propositions of fact, value, or

policy. These categories allow arguers to decide which issues or questions to address in an

argument (Warnick & Inch, 1994). Some propositions make an arguer’s job easier to identify than



Part 2, p. 106

CEREMONIAL, DELIBERATIVE, AND FORENSIC, AND FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY

Propositions of value pose a more difficult task for arguers. Their burden is greater because

they must first establish that a phenomenon exists, and then they must construct a persuasive

evaluation or judgment of that phenomenon. Politically involved people might argue that “liberals

are bad” or that “conservatives are bad.” Though this may seem simple to argue, as most people

are familiar with the terms liberal and conservative, these terms mean different things to different

people. The job of the arguer is to provide a commonly accepted definition of the terms for his or

While the previous example of propositions of value dealt with the arguer’s and the

audience’s mutual agreement and understanding of terms and concepts, other examples deal with

value claims based on facts that have yet to be proved. For instance, people may argue that

globalization is bad for the working class in the United States. They might support this proposition



Part 2, p. 107

of jobs without providing them with any positive outcomes. It would be the responsibility of the

arguer to argue both that globalization takes away jobs without equalizing this with benefits and

that these effects are detrimental to the working class in the United States of America.

The most complex propositions involve those of policy. Warnick and Inch (1994) explain

that “policy claims call for a specific course of action and focus on whether a change in policy or

behavior should take place” (p. 66). This type of proposition involves three different types of

burdens for the arguer. First, he or she must establish that a phenomenon exists. Second, he or she

must convince the audience that the phenomenon is good or bad. Finally, the arguer needs to

provide a remedy for the problem. Arguments like this often take place in government, where new

When the act was moving through government, many argued that it was necessary to fight

terrorism; however, others opposing the act have criticized it for weakening protections of civil

liberties. The burdens and responsibilities were very clear for those who supported the act in this

instance. First, the act’s supporters had to provide strong evidence that a threat of terrorism existed



Part 2, p. 108

act would violate privacies protected by the Constitution. Finally, supporters argued that the act

would successfully solve the problems outlined in the argument.

Does the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress and the president mean

that the arguers sufficiently established all the necessary burdens and responsibilities? The

complexity of policy propositions (and, more generally, of politics), and the hot-button issues

SECTION II: BURDENS

As the first section makes clear, the topics of arguments are of different varieties. Once people

involved in a dispute can agree on the topic of the disagreement, they can then decide what type of

topic they have chosen to argue about. As was previously stated, identifying the type of dispute

allows the parties involved to identify their responsibilities or burdens in the argument. Though no

specific burdens exist for ceremonial speeches or arguments, different types of burdens have been

identified for deliberative or policy arguments and forensic varieties of argumentation. In



Part 2, p. 109

STOCK ISSUES

First, the stock issues are the issues or questions that must be answered in order to convincingly

justify an action or a change in policy. There are four stock issues (Ziegelmueller & Dause, 1975),

including:

2. Stock issue of blame

4. Stock issues of cost and benefit

Policies are rarely enacted by our federal government without rigorous debate taking place.

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate argue to justify action, such as

amendments to the U.S. Constitution, budget changes, crime policy, and education spending.

This is the stock issue of “ill.” The ill, or problem, must be proved to exist by the

affirmative team. The extent of the problem must also be described. For example, the arguer



The second stock issue is blame. The arguer must explain the cause of the ill.

Unfortunately, many people believe this is self-explanatory. For instance, many people believe

that television causes acts of violence. Audiences may accept this claim without much evidence. In

describing the ill, an arguer may explain how much violence exists in our society. Nevertheless,

there is little evidence to link the use of television to violent activity. A popular debate exists today

regarding the effects of comprehensive sex education in schools. Though we may believe that

The third stock issue involves the cure. At this stage, the arguer must put forth the

solution to the problem he or she has identified. It is not enough to argue that a problem exists;

instead, an effective, practical, and acceptable solution must be proposed. For instance, fighting

poverty might require types of job training or public assistance, whereas commissions might be

proposed to regulate the quality of work conditions. In other situations, an easily understood

problem might require a ridiculous remedy. A person might identify nuclear waste as a harmful

problem in society. To remedy the problem, he or she might propose that barrels of waste be



Part 2, p. 111

members often probe these people with questions and comments, in the hope of making sense of

the people and their problems. With the best of intentions, audience members will attempt to

enlighten the people on stage by telling them, “You need more love” or “You should just try to get

Now that we know the cure is reasonable and practical, the audience needs to know the

costs and benefits of the proposed solution. In other words, the audience should be able to visualize

why the solution is likely to solve the problems identified in the argument. For example, if people

DIVISIONS OF CONTROVERSY

Divisions of controversy are used to direct arguers in any situation toward the issues involved in a

dispute (Ziegelmueller & Dause, 1975). Whether people are arguing issues of fact, value, or

policy, the divisions of controversy outline both the types of disputes in which parties will engage



Part 2, p. 112

1. The frame of definition

2. The frame of existence of fact

3. The frame of quality

The frame of definition is often used in arguments. Take, for instance, a schoolgirl who acts up in

class. The child is given a note to take home to her parents which explains that she has received a

The dispute between the teacher and the parents stems from a disagreement over the

definition of the child’s behavior. Whereas the teacher defines arguing as “acting up,” the parents

believe the daughter is displaying signs of strength and independence. Similarly, the parties in an

argument often ask each other to define the terms involved. The process of defining and agreeing

on terminology ensures that all parties are arguing about the same issue. Arguments can become

messy when both parties fail to agree on the meaning of terms. For example, the Constitution

protects citizens of the United States from “cruel and unusual punishment.” What constitutes a

cruel and unusual punishment?

The frame of existence of fact naturally follows the frame of definition. The frame of

definition directs the arguer to make certain that key terms are defined and ideas are mutually



Part 2, p. 113

Finally, the frame of quality looks at the circumstances under which a certain fact occurred.

In our courts of law, murders are qualified by degree. A person can commit a third-, second-, or

first-degree murder. Though in each case a murder has been committed, the circumstances

surrounding the situation dictate how severely the murderer will be punished. Similarly, in

arguments with friends or family we employ the frame of quality.

In the situation involving the little girl, the parents and the teacher may ask the girl to

explain why she behaved the way she did in class. Suppose the girl explains that the first time she

Some students use these arguments all the time. Students who hand in material late often

explain either why they could not complete the assignment on time or why their grade should not

be affected. Either the students’ printer broke down or the teacher did not give them a reasonable

amount of time to complete the assignment. Even though the students know that by definition the



Part 2, p. 114

ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS

Finally, there are three different types of evidence used by arguers. These three types of evidence

are termed:

1. Ethos

3. Pathos

Each of these types of evidence influences audiences in different ways. Ethos is based on ethics.

Logos is based in logic. Pathos is emotional evidence. What follows is a brief description of each

type of evidence and several recommendations regarding its effective use.

Ethos is similar to ethics, and shares a lot with this term. An arguer is said to have ethos if

he or she is trustworthy, credible, or knowledgeable in a certain area. A person with a great deal of

ethos is normally very persuasive. In argument, the ethos of both the speaker and his or her sources

lends credibility and strength to an argument. For example, on issues of national security and



Part 2, p. 115

speaking ability, charisma, and appearance. But what about speakers of whom we have no prior

knowledge? How do audiences assess the ethos or credibility of unfamiliar speakers, such as guest

lecturers, candidates for public office, or people we ask for directions on the street? We encounter

unfamiliar speakers every day. Whether we encounter a new professor in a classroom or listen to a

ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS

Ethos involves not only audience assessments of speakers but also the sources the speakers

use. The authors or organizations from whom arguers get their information can affect the strength

of their arguments. For example, how trustworthy are cigarette executives when they use their own

research to claim that cigarettes are safe to smoke? Moreover, how much credibility do political

candidates have when they use statistics supplied by the groups that contributed to their

campaigns, such as unions or corporations? These examples demonstrate that arguers should try



Part 2, p. 116

Logical forms of evidence are compelling for a number of reasons. One reason involves

people’s trust in science. Scientific successes surround us each day in the form of computers,

automobiles, and smartphones, to name a few. Many of us know little about how these and other

high-tech items work, but we trust the expertise of the scientists and engineers who produce them.

Logical evidence should not be used to deceive an audience. Logical evidence is simply a

form of suppo rt that helps strengthen a claim. If statistics truly support an arguer’s claim, they

should be used. Statistics that have little relevance to the point of disagreement lend little to a

person’s argument. In addition, logical evidence can fatigue an audience. Have you ever heard a

Pathos is the final type of evidence. Pathos appeals attempt to involve the emotions of the

audience. They employ personal stories, examples, or illustration. They can also involve the use of

fear or sympathy. Audiences may be warned by a candidate that voting for his or her opponent will



Part 2, p. 117

While political candidates and commercials often use pathos appeals, speakers also rely

heavily on this type of evidence. Arguers may use this type of evidence in many forms, including

touching personal stories, stories of tragedies, or vivid accounts intended to scare the audience.

Unlike logical evidence, emotional evidence helps keep the audience interested and may help

SECTION III: REFUTATION

Once an argument or a persuasive appeal has been presented to an audience, the argument must

be challenged. The speaker might begin by questioning the extent to which the above-mentioned

burdens have been satisfied. For instance, if the argument is over a policy, has the arguer satisfied

Keeping the point of stasis or the precise disagreement in mind, two approaches can be

employed to test the validity of an argument. The first approach is the lines of argument (Huber,

