Oral communication
and critical thinking
• This course is designed to meet the content
requirements of oral communication.
• However, there is no oral communication without
critical thinking competence.
• That includes the ability to construct and present
sound arguments and the ability to evaluate and
refute arguments advanced by others.
Facts, values, policies
• In this class we will focus on the policy
speech.
• Arguments about policy (public policy,
corporate policies, etc.) are the most
prevalent in our society, the most
complex, and probably will be the most
important in your future career, whether
in law, politics, or engineering.
Facts, values, policies
• Of course, policy arguments cannot be
made without claims of fact or claims of
value. Thus, while working on your
policies, you also will argue facts and
values.
Arguments and debates
• In real life no argument remains without a
response
• Each student will participate in two debates.
• In one debate the student will be presenting and
defending a policy speech while another student
will be refuting his or her speech. In the second
debate the roles will be reversed.
Initial topic proposal
• Your first task in this class is to select a
subject area that is of interest to you and
then develop a proposition of policy on
which you will present the policy speech.
Initial topic proposal
• The proposal should include the proposition itself
and a brief explanation why/how this proposal is
justified.
• The topic should be relevant to the present
public policy issues and controversies. E.g.,
“State colleges should introduce a comprehensive
entrance examination for all new students,” or
“Carpool lanes on California freeways should be
eliminated.”
A statement of YOUR POLICY
• This is the policy you will argue in your POLICY
SPEECH.
• In order to have a debate, the student who will be
refuting your Policy speech must have a clear idea
of what is your policy.
Debates
• POLICY SPEECH + OUTLINE
• REFUTATION SPEECH + OUTLINE
DEBATE FORMAT
STUDENT A. Policy Speech, No. 1 (PRO). 6 minutes
STUDENT B. Refutation Speech, No. 2 (CON). 6 minutes
STUDENT A. Rebuttal/Response (PRO). 3 minutes
STUDENT B. Rebuttal (CON). 3 minutes
STUDENT A. (concluding debate) 1 minute
TOTAL:
19 minutes.
MIDTERM
and FINAL EXAMINATIONS
• The examinations are on persuasion and
argumentation theory given in lectures and in the
text.
• The examinations will combine ‘multiple-choice,’
short answer and essay questions.
DEBATE CRITIQUE PORTFOLIO
• You will be asked to evaluate (in writing)
three debates presented during the course.
• The general questions of your critique are:
• Were the arguments convincing?
• How the debaters managed responses to the
arguments from their opponents?
Other activities
Quizzes, writing thesis statement, evaluating
evidence, evaluating debates, etc.
PERSUASION
• convincing, changing one’s mind, inducing
• a conscious attempt by one individual to
change the attitudes, beliefs, or behavior of
another individual or group of individuals
through the transmission of some message
How do we change minds?
•
•
•
•
Credibility of the source
Emotional / motivational appeals
Cognitive dissonance
Psychological reactance
Is persuasion “mindless influence”?
• Plato: humans consist of three parts
• Appetitive: person’s instinct, desire for
food and sex
• Spirited: person’s character, will, dignity,
honesty, and bravery
• Rational: person’s ability to reason.
Aristotle’s three means of persuasion
• Pathos: a state of emotion
• Ethos: the character of the speaker
• Logos: the appeal to the rational part
of humans.
Definition
Argumentation is a form of
instrumental communication relying
on reasoning and proof to influence
belief or behavior through the use of
spoken and written messages
Definition (another variation)
• Argumentation is a form of a persuasive
discourse in which a claim is advanced
and supported with evidence through
reasoning
Daniel Kahneman’s systems
• SYSTEM 1: automatic pilot
• SYSTEM 2: reasoning / analyzing
Elaboration Likelihood Model
• What happens when a person
receives a persuasive message?
• Distinct routes of processing:
• Central route (Elaboration occurs)
• Peripheral route (Nonelaboration)
Audience’s adherence to the
presented claims
• Particular audiences differ in their
beliefs, attitudes, and preferences
• Universal audiences “A universal
audience is comprised of rational men
and women”
“Reasonable person”
• “Reasonable person” is “thinking,
speaking, or acting according to the
dictates of reason”
• Such persons are able to judge arguments
and there is a reasonable expectation that
they will arrive at the same conclusions
when exposed to the same arguments.
Audience Analysis
• Particular audiences
• Demographic analysis
• Psychological analysis
Fields of argumentation:
context of argumentation
• Field invariant: the principles of
argumentation that are universal and apply
to all arguments and all rational thinking
• Field dependent: limitations of
argumentation dependent on the context,
needs, etc.
Starting Point: a disagreement with
the existing beliefs or policies
• The situation in which something exists
unchallenged is known as the status quo.
• There is a presumption that the existing
things, policies, or beliefs are correct,
true, adequate, etc. (at least for the time
being).
• BUT: There is no sanctity of status quo
and all presumptions are refutable.
Burden of Proof &
Prima Facie Case
• A person who advocates a position that is
contrary to the status quo and the accepted
presumptions has the burden of proof.
• Meeting the burden of proof is known as
establishing a prima facie case.
Prima facie case
• a fully developed argument strong enough to
justify a change in beliefs or policies.
• an argument that is sufficient to raise a
reasonable question and doubt regarding the
status quo
• “such case as will prevail until contradicted
and overcome by other evidence”
Shift of the burden of proof
• Prima facie case establishes a new status
quo (at least for the time being).
• The new status quo will stand until
“contradicted and overcome by other
evidence.”
• In other words, just as there is a new
status quo, there is also a shift in the
requirement of the burden of proof.
natural & artificial status quo
• There are two types of situations in which
artificial status quo will be required.
• 1. When the natural status quo is not clear.
• 2. When regardless of the actual “state of
affairs,” debaters simply agree upon certain
presumption.
Advocate and Opponent
• Advocate: the one who challenges status
quo
• Opponent: the one who defends status quo
Propositions
• All arguments begin with a proposition.
• A proposition establishes the direction of
the argument and determines the position of
the participants in a debate (who is
challenging the status quo and who is
defending it).
Propositions
• A proposition is a statement that asserts
that something is (was, will be) or that
something should be (should take place).
• Such statements may be affirmed or
denied. Or, in other words, their truth,
correctness, or desirability can be
accepted or questioned.
Propositions
1. Propositions of fact (factual, designative)
2. Propositions of value (evaluative)
3. Propositions of policy (advocative)
Propositions of fact are verifiable
• a proposition is verifiable if its truth
could be established.
• a proposition can be considered
verifiable if it is possible to show that
the proposition is probable
Stock issues in building a case
for a proposition of fact:
• The evidence and reasoning establishing
the truth or probability of a proposition
of fact
•
•
•
•
Methods:
Observation,
Experiment,
Testimony.
Propositions of value
• 1. Stating the claim/proposition.
• 2. Establishing the criteria for the
evaluative component.
• 3. Applying the criteria.
• 4. Verifying whether the applied criteria
correspond to facts.
1. Claim: FDR was one of the
greatest presidents in the U.S. history.
• 2. Criteria for greatness: Great presidents (a)
have a vision, (b) are realists, (c) can build a
national consensus, etc.
• 3. Applying the criteria to FDR: Is it true that
FDR had a vision, was a realist, built a national
consensus, etc.?
• 4. Verification: Can it be proven that FDR had a
vision?
Proposition of policy
• Asserts that a certain course of action
should be taken (something should be done)
Hierarchy of Propositions
• Fact: something is
• Value: that something is “bad,” “good,”
“ineffective,” etc.
• Policy: something should be done about it.
Hierarchy of Propositions
• Proposition of Fact:
• Person X engaged in a sexual relationship with a
minor.
• Proposition of Value:
• Person X is guilty of a crime (according to the
statute).
• Proposition of Policy:
• Person X should be punished by a fine, jail term,
etc.
Practical considerations
• For a debate to occur there must be a
controversy.
• The controversy identified by a proposition
should be timely and significant enough for a
fruitful debate.
• The proposition must be narrow enough to be
handled in the time allotted for an argument.
Phrasing the Proposition
• State your proposition in a full and
declarative sentence.
• Propositions should be definite.
• Propositions should present a single idea.
• Propositions should be clear.
• Propositions should be fair.
Defining the key terms
• Reportive definitions (basic dictionary
definitions)
• Stipulative definitions
• Theoretical definitions
• Operational definitions
Reportive definitions
• Reportive definitions are dictionary definitions,
the commonly accepted meaning of words.
• See discussion in the textbook: pages 47-49
Stipulative definitions
• Specify the meaning of a particular term or
establish an additional or different understanding
of a term.
Example: Stipulating one of these meanings of
“Christian.”
• (a) a person who has received Christian baptism,
• (b) an adherent of Christ’s teachings, or
• (c) a person exhibiting Christian qualities
Theoretical definitions
• Theoretical definitions (constructs) are
necessary in situations where there is a dispute
over a theoretical meaning of a concept. Such
definitions are often actual theories of what
something is.
• E.g., in one definition, love is seen as a
combination of intimacy, commitment, and
passion that two people share.
Theoretical definitions (constructs)
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXAMPLES:
Authoritarian personality
American exceptionalism
Love
Communication competence
Political efficacy
Operational definitions
• Operational definitions are intended to define a
concept by observable and measurable indicators.
• How to measure commitment? E.g., by the length
of a relationship or such statements as “I am
actively supportive of my partner’s well-being” or
“I am able to count on my partner in times of
need”
Other ways to define a term
•
•
•
•
By synonym
By authority
By example
By function
Rules of Definition
• The Inclusionary Rule: Listing all that is included
• The Exclusionary Rule: Specifying what is excluded
• The Adaptation Rule: Adapt the meaning to the
appropriate audiences
• The Neutrality Rule: Defining without bias,
emotions, or moral judgment
• The Clarity Rule