The Art of Speaking: The Conclusion

Creator: Vishwa Vijayasankar

Life revolves around the communication we have with one another, some being genuine conversations, some being persuasion, and others being debates. The most intense of all these forms of communication are debate and arguments. What is a debate? You can think about it as an exchange of words between individuals or another group where one individual or group supports his or her own opinion by proving its dominance over the viewpoint of the other.

Easier said than done, debate, your style, is shaped by your past experiences and environment. In that sense, we can view debate as 50% you and the remaining 50% your opposing party. But, for now let’s stick to what are some elements to build your argument around. If you are a fan of English from school, you are in for a treat, as the rhetorical triangle has all the needed information.

The devices of pathos, ethos, and logos are all combined in a fluent and engaging argument, which lures the audience’s minds to accept your statement. Starting with ethos, we often use reputable sources such as scientists, doctors, businesses, and even laws to prove our point. For example, if I wanted to convince my friend who believes that the pandemic has increased family bonding that the pandemic has in fact distanced family, I can use several evidences that establish me as credible: I can include statistics like according to the research conducted by the Stanford College, 89.3% children are completely occupied in online platforms such as Zoom, Facebook, and Instagram. Through this statement, I make a reference to a reputable college such as Stanford, which already helps the opposer create a sense of trust for me. But I don’t stop there, rather include numbers to further support my opinion. Now, it is important to understand the influence numbers have on an individual. A person who uses statistical data is often unquestioned due to the professional and confident tone expressed when he or she supports the argument through specific data. By doing so, I am able to draw in outside support to show the popularity of my idea, which already intimidates my opponent.

Logos is the most commonly used strategy in a debate whether you realize it or not. For instance, using my previous example, if I were to expand on my ethos statement with some addition of logic, I can say that more time spent on the internet and online can lead to higher stress levels due to blue light, which can affect normal conversation with family, making them more distant from the person. Here, I started by defining my argument by “more time spent on the internet,” and then transitioned into logical statements by relating the topic to blue light and its harmful effects; I have concluded my argument by relating my argument to how additional stress leads to conversational differences, making families more distanced.

What about using logos in general? Normally when making any argument, you want to first identify your stance and then identify the purpose of your evidence. Following that, you want to answer these two questions: Why am I including this? Does including this strengthen my stance or weaken it? If you are able to properly answer these two questions, you should be perfectly fine in using logos in your argument.

Pathos, the most effective of them all, is simply appealing to the emotions of the audience and opposing candidate. You may be wondering how it is the most effective. I like to think of this as a robot vs. human game. A robot can reproduce information that Google can, and do it at a faster speed than humans. Is that ethos? Maybe not, but in the current generation where the internet is more credible than humans, yes it is. A robot can also warn you saying don’t eat poison because it can kill you. Is that an appeal to logos? Definitely. But can a robot appeal to your pathos? Before answering that, I’ll ask another question: What makes a human a human? The ability to feel emotions. In that case, how can a robot appeal to one’s pathos? See, right there I used a form of logos to convey my point. Anyways, in the same situation of increased online activity distancing us from family, if I say that three out of four teenagers move away from their parents due to the lack of online facilities present at their houses. Beyond how far-fetched it may seem, I can still use it to prove my point by saying something like this: imagine all those mothers and fathers who work day and night to ensure the best for their child, to keep their child with them throughout their lives. What happens to their efforts? Because of decreased online facilities, several families are separated permanently, with the parents losing the love of their life. I started by introducing a claim, and then went to capture its essence. But the key here was that I related it to overarching themes such as morality, and justice. And to do that, you need to exaggerate your claim somewhat to present your claim as a problem faced by people to your opponents.

You would have documented your argument deeply in the mind of the opposing candidate, but the most important part consists of your rebuttal. Your rebuttal is basically presenting a counterclaim to prove your claim. I know it sounds weird initially, but guess what, it is by far one of the most effective strategies. Along the lines of our previous argument, what if I say this: One may say that several families are connecting over platforms such as Zoom, Skype, etc., but is that making their bonding any stronger? Normally, family used to visit more often and have a genuine relationship, but after the pandemic, since everything has become online, most families are communicating for a reduced amount of time than they normally would. If there is less communication than normal, that can be considered as distancing from one another due to minimal conversation. Natural barriers to conversation influence the connection one has with another, which has been proven by scientific research. Has it not?

Let’s break this down now. First, I referred to my opposer’s main argument, and then presented a challenging view. But I did not stop there, but went on to emphasize why the challenging view is logical, supporting it with evidence. However, the ending is going to be your signature move: ask a question. It almost works all the time, as now the opposing candidate is forced to think in your shoes and even the slightest support they can provide to your argument can depreciate the quality of their argument and intimidate them further.

Follow these steps, and I guarantee you that winning an argument or debate will not be news, but the same old words repeated to your ear. First identify your claim and the opposite party’s claim. Then form a set of evidence based on your extensive research which you will relate to your argument, and in this process you want to specifically use the wording of your claim to make it more clear to your opponent. Then include some elements that form an emotional appeal to appeal to the morality of him or her, and after major argument points, include rebuttal statements to override the major points of your opponent.

Copyright © 2020 LOGICAL Minds. All rights reserved.