The Persuasive Speech

Formatting: Single-spaced, 1-inch margins, Times New Roman, 12 pt. font, submitted in eLearning Dropbox in .doc, .docx, .pdf, or .rtf format (NOT .pages or .odt) and an in-class performance

Length: 5 minutes in length, so approximately 500 – 750 words

Bibliographic Documentation: A Works Cited page is required in MLA or APA style. You will need to reference three credible sources, one of which should ideally argue the counterargument from your speech. In-text citation is not required.

Overview

Even when a writer has a personal motive for composing an essay, to remember, to reflect, to meditate, for catharsis, a writer also almost always wants to create an effect on her or his audience: to entertain, to educate, to move the reader. In our third unit, we will focus on a genre of essays with one clear intention: to persuade. We will shift focus to an oral genre of writing: the persuasive speech. Most often, a speech is written with a large, even global audience in mind in today’s televised and digitized age, so it’s unlikely that a speech writer wants to alienate her or his audience. More likely, she or he wants to win the audience over, thus winning them over to a cause as well. A good speech wins an audience over with its logic, but a good speaker wins an audience over just as much with tone, credibility, charisma, and eloquence. Let me emphasize again that we’re working in an oral medium for this unit. This is writing for the ears rather than the eyes, so the writing should be clear and dynamic in a single performance. Reading aloud and listening to the eloquence of sentences is fundamental to this particular writing process. As you compose your speeches, we will read and watch several examples in the genre that employ a variety of tones and argumentation styles.

The Task

Your task is to write a persuasive speech on a topic of your choice. The most obvious topics are often explicitly political, but don’t rule out topics that aren’t as overtly political, such as debates on WMU’s campus or debates in the consumer marketplace like the one over net neutrality. I will encourage you to focus on a less common debate, because it’s more likely to be new to the class and therefore more interesting. Some debates are just so common that I’m ruling them out: abortion, the death penalty, gun control, marijuana legalization, and homosexual marriage. I’d also encourage you to be as specific as possible in your choice of debate. For instance, rather than write on education reform, write on teachers’ salaries or the new Common Core program. Most likely, you will have to do some initial exploratory research to narrow your speech’s focus. I am also asking that you research three credible sources for your speech, one of which should ideally argue the counterargument from your stance. I ask that you do not use websites, documentaries, or reference books like encyclopedias as your scholarly sources; your best bet will be scholarly journal articles. Databases such as CQ Researcher, PAIS International, and LexisNexis Academic focus on public affairs. I will allow popular newspapers and magazines, but please do consider bias, in any of your sources. For instance, we all know that TV stations like Fox News have a political agenda. The same is true of all media.

At the end of the unit, you will present your speech to the class, so please keep this presentation in mind as you compose. Read your draft out loud as you compose and edit your sentences to sound as eloquent as possible. As you read out loud, you might discover quirks in your own writing style like wordiness, sentence fragments, and misplaced commas that you can finesse.

Response to Paul Roberts’ Essay “How to Say Nothing in 500 Words”

Many of my students made a breakthrough with the quality of their prose over Discussion Board. I asked them to read Paul Roberts’ essay “How to Say Nothing in 500 Words,” then apply the concepts to the rough drafts of their open letters. My students even admitted to liking the prompt. I might ask them to do this same prompt again with their research essays.

Prompt

Paul Roberts gives us some specific suggestions for how to improve our writing on tired old subjects. I’m interested to see you apply some of Roberts’ suggestions to your open letters. In your post, I’d like you to…

1) Identify the five most obvious arguments people make on your side of your argument. Now, identify three arguments from your side that aren’t as commonly addressed.

2) Identify an “abstraction” in your open letter. Describe a strategy or example you could use to make that abstraction or generality more specific.

3) Identify one sentence in your first draft that has “padding”. Rewrite it to be more concise and precise.

4) Identify one sentence in your rough draft that is soft in tone, or beats around the bush. Rewrite that sentence to be more direct or harsh in tone. As Roberts tells us, “call a fool a fool.”

5) Identify one sentence in your rough draft that uses a cliche or pat expression. If you’re having trouble, just look for a phrase that you see often in writing. Rewrite it so that it uses more unique wording.

6) Identify two “colorless” words in your rough draft. Replace those words (or perhaps phrases) with “colorful” words.

The Art of Invective

During my first two semesters, I emphasized the efficacy of understanding and compromise as a persuasive technique, via Rogerian rhetoric. But after reading two essays, one by David Wojahn and one by Tony Hoagland, on the lost art of invective in poetry, I want to foil my lesson in compromise with one in persuasive shaming.

Writing Exercise

In his Inferno, Dante Alighieri describes Hell as nine concentric circles where sinners are tortured with punishments that have a certain “poetic justice,” so that the punishment is ironically related to the sin. Flatterers are buried in human waste, a.k.a., they are literally waist-deep in their own bullshit. Adulterers are blown back and forth by storm winds, just as lust violently sways one’s emotions. Fortune tellers and false prophets have to wander through eternity with their heads turned around backwards, because they claimed to see into the future.

For this exercise, imagine an eternal hell for one of your enemies, whether an individual or a group, where the punishment befits the crime. Describe the punishment with as much sensory detail and imagery as possible. Hopefully you’ll have fun taking your revenge through writing, but see if you can also justify that revenge. Describe the person’s crimes so persuasively that your audience too will take pleasure in revenge.

*Thanks to David Wojahn and Eve Salisbury for inspiring this prompt.

Open Letter Assignment

Formatting: Business Letter formatting, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, Times New Roman 12 pt. font  (-5 points for incorrect formatting)

Length: 150 word maximum for pitch and 750 word maximum for the op-ed organized into 2 – 3 solid paragraphs

Bibliographic Documentation: Evidence and sources should be consulted and referenced as appropriate for the selected publication; thorough in-text citation is generally sufficient for newspapers and magazines.

Overview

A writer’s motivation to compose a personal narrative is for her or himself: to remember, to reflect, to meditate, for catharsis; but a writer’s motivation is also to create an effect on her or his audience: to entertain, to educate, to move the reader. In our next unit, we will focus on a genre of essays with one clear intention: to persuade. We will work specifically with the ‘open letter’ genre. An open letter is written specifically toward an individual or finite group of people, but published to a large, indiscriminate audience. Therefore, you have two audiences for your open letter: the specific individual or group addressed and the larger reading public. Often an open letter is written to draw focus to the letter’s recipient, whether to publicly shame the recipient or to force her or him to action. As you prepare to compose your open letters, we will read several examples in the genre that employ a variety of tones and argumentation styles.

The Task

Your task is two-fold. The central task is to write the open letter, using the tools of argument we will learn in this unit to make an argument of your choice to the recipient of your choice. You will also research a suitable publication that would have an interest in your open letter. As far as what publication and recipient you choose, I leave it almost entirely to your discretion. My requirements are that 1) you enjoy reading the publication you write for; and 2) you care passionately about your argument.

Before you write for a publication though, you have to sell your idea to the publication you want to write for – you have to ‘pitch’ to the editor. Therefore, the other component of this assignment is to write a pitch letter to the editor of the publication you choose. In order to complete the task, you must: 1) Find the appropriate editor to pitch to (look on the publication website/first pages for the masthead); and 2) Tell the editor what you want to write about, why it’s timely, why their readership will care about your voice, and why you are the right person to write it; and 3) make it quick, 150 words. Editors are busy, so get right to the point.

Ethos, Logos, and Pathos Prewrite

I will begin my persuasive writing unit with a day devoted to teaching ethos, pathos, and logos. On this day in class, I will ask them to begin thinking about ethos, logos, and pathos, without yet having the terms, by throwing this thinking exercise on the board.

Exercise

Pretend you are in a debate with someone over a controversial social or political issue. You strongly favor one side, and your opponent strongly favors the opposite. Now answer the following questions…

1)What credentials could your opponent have that would make you listen to him or her?

2)What facts or statistics could he or she provide that might sway your opinion?

3)What stories could he or she tell that would change your mind?

Answering “nothing” to the above questions doesn’t count!

*Thanks to Dani Ryskamp who gave me this prompt.

Post-Nuclear War Survival

To introduce ethos, pathos, and logos in rhetoric, I split my class into three groups and assign the following thought experiment. I ask them first to choose survivors individually, then to choose survivors as a group, and finally I’ll put each group’s survivors on the board and we’ll argue as a class. I’ll then classify their different justifications as pathos driven, logos driven, or ethos driven. 

Overview

This unit sets up a hypothetical dilemma and asks students to offer solutions based on their own reasoning and problem-solving skills. The unit begins with a scenario of nuclear war and requires students to make decisions that may affect the survival of humans on Earth.

Purpose

The purpose of this unit is to have students work together to reach consensus on a controversial issue. It helps them realize that sometimes there are no right and wrong answers.

Objectives

Students will be able to: 1) Evaluate various types of information and decide what traits and other factors are of most importance for long-term survival in an emergency or crisis situation; and 2) Effectively present their opinions and arguments either orally or in writing.

The Task

Three days ago, nuclear war broke out around the world with massive attacks in all heavily populated areas. For the first 24 hours, radio broadcasts reported tremendous damage and loss of life in all areas, including the total annihilation of most of Earth’s population. For the past 48 hours, there have been no broadcasts. Fortunately, the people listed below were able to reach a fallout shelter in time to take cover and survive the initial devastation. You must assume that those in the shelter are the only survivors of the war.

Here is the dilemma: There are twelve people in the fallout shelter, but there are limited supplies to keep them all alive until the atmosphere is safe. To survive, the people must stay inside the fallout shelter for at least three months. The problem is that if all of them stay in the shelter, all of them will starve to death or dehydrate. There are supplies enough to allow seven of the twelve people to survive.

Your task is to decide, based on the information given, which people will be allowed to remain in the shelter and live, and which people will be required to leave the shelter, and most likely die. We will assume that those who are selected to leave will do so peacefully. At issue is the survival of humans on Earth. The bottom line is that if human beings are to repopulate the Earth, such repopulation will begin with those survivors chosen by you.

Carefully evaluate all information about each of the twelve persons. Consider their health, experiences, age, sex, and intelligence. Then decide which seven will be allowed to stay in the shelter and which five must leave. On a separate sheet of paper, list the seven people you would have survive and repopulate the Earth, stating your reasons for keeping them. Then list the five you would have leave the shelter and state the reasons for not keeping them.

After you have made your decisions and formulated your reasons, you will be placed with a group of other students (four to five per group). Each person in the group should present his or her decisions to the rest of the group. The task is to reach a consensus among the group as to who should stay and who should go.

Character Profiles

James Stanley
age: 43
IQ: 112
health: good
education/training: 2 yrs college, 2 yrs military
work experience: 15 years farming successfully

Gerald White
age: 35
IQ: 98
health: fair
education/training: high school diploma
work experience: 4 years Army (infantry), 10 years general construction laborer

Janie Stanley
age: 13
IQ: 120
health: excellent
education/training: middle school student
work experience: none

Martha Gray
age: 25
IQ: 142
health: good
education/training: PhD in music theory
work experience: 2 years teaching on college level

Wanda Brice
age: 50
IQ: 140
health: fair
education/training: Master’s degree in psychology
work experience: 15 years as mental health case-worker; 10 years as director of local mental health counseling service

William Gray
age: 8
IQ: 150
health: good
education/training: elementary school student
work experience: none

Bill Waters
age: 27
IQ: 104
health: excellent
education/training: tech school graduate
work experience: 10 years heavy construction and welding.

John Davis
age: 33
IQ: 125
health: fair
education/training: college degree in chemistry
work experience: 12 years high school chem teacher

Michelle Patterson
age: 19
IQ: 105
health: fair
education/training: high school graduate
work experience: 3 years in retail sales

Marjorie Blaylock
age: 39
IQ: 133
health: poor
education/training: medical school graduate
work experience: 10 years general family medical practice

Ray Wilson
age: 60
IQ: 127
health: good
education/training: 4 years college, majored in business
work experience: 10 years as bank teller, 20 years as financial advisor and bank president

Fred Fredrick
age: 54
IQ: 132
health: excellent
education/training: highly trained in electronics
work experience: 25 years as US Navy. electronics technician; 10 years private electronics repair

*Thanks to Robyn Harless who assigned this same thought experiment to my IB History class.

The Op-Ed and Pitch

Formatting: Business Letter formatting, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, Times New Roman 12 pt. font  (-5 points for incorrect formatting)

Length: 150 word maximum for pitch and 750 word maximum for the op-ed organized into 2 – 3 solid paragraphs

Bibliographic Documentation: Evidence and sources should be consulted and referenced as appropriate for the selected publication; thorough in-text citation is generally sufficient for newspapers and magazines.

Overview

With the first unit, we explored personal writing suitable for academic audiences by reading narratives that featured a formal aspect while maintaining a unique voice and worldview. For this unit, we’ll shift our emphasis to public writing that is also suitable for academic audiences. While we’ll plan to read academic scholarship, we’ll also explore different genres for which academic texts are suitable, including editorial publications, working specifically with the ‘op-ed’ genre. We’ll pay close attention to how uses of evidence, consultation of sources, and argumentation styles differ when working in the public writing genre. As we prepare to compose op-eds, we’ll read arguments that passionately and articulately address timely and controversial topics.

The Task

Your task is two-fold. The central task is to write the editorial, using the tools of argument we will learn in this unit to make the case for an argument of your choice. As far as what publication and topic you choose, I leave it almost entirely to your discretion. My requirements are that 1) you enjoy reading the publication you write for; and 2) you care passionately about your argument of choice. You can’t write about abortion, the death penalty, gun control, marijuana legalization, or gay marriage…we’ve all heard all the arguments already. 

Before you write for a publication though, you have to sell your idea to the publication you want to write for – you have to ‘pitch’ to the editor. Therefore, the other component of this assignment is to write a pitch letter to the editor of the publication you choose. In order to complete the task, you must: 1) Find the appropriate editor to pitch to (look on the publication website/first pages for the masthead); and 2) Tell the editor what you want to write about, why it’s timely, why their readership will care about your voice, and why you are the right person to write it; and 3) make it quick, 150 words. Editors are busy, so get right to the point.