Choose a topic to convince your parents of and write a very short speech that can be delivered in 1 min. Write 3 versions of the speech using each mode of persuasion.

SUBJECT:

The subject of this speech is to persuade my parents to allow me to see a movie on the weekend.

PATHOS:

Mum and Dad, I‘m going to address the fact that you will not allow me to see SANCTUM this weekend with my friends. This is an outrage! You can’t be serious as to try to stop me from socialising and having a good night. Even though it may be late, haven’t you had late nights? Of course you have! So why can’t it be the same for me? I’m old enough and I know my way around the shops. So finally I believe that if you are good parents, you will allow me to go see the movie.

LOGOS:

Mum and Dad, I‘m going to address the fact that you will not allow me to see SANCTUM this weekend with my friends. Why would you even want to stop me from seeing this movie? You yourselves are always telling me to socialise and see my friends more. This is doing just that. You can’t try and stop me from doing exactly what you’ve wanted me to do for so long. That would be contradictory to your original statement. Where is the logic in that? So honestly, you’ve wanted me to do this for so long, why try to stop me from doing it in the first place?

ETHOS:

Mum and Dad, I'm going to address the fact that you will not allow me to see SANCTUM this weekend with my friends. Think of the benefits that could come from this. First of all there’d only be two children to watch over, and you've continuously said that I’m a young man and not a kid any more. You say that I need to improve my social skills and receive some level of independence. Well this will allow me to do these things. I will be hanging out with friends, I will prove that I can do things by myself and there is also one less child to worry about.

'Abraham Lincoln: The Gettysburg Address'

Abraham Lincoln's speech

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

President Abraham Lincoln - November 19, 1863

The Battle of Gettysburg occurred over three hot summer days, July 1 to July 3, 1863, around the small market town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It began as a skirmish but by its end involved 160,000 Americans and effectively decided the fate of the Union.  On November 19, 1863, President Lincoln went to the battlefield to dedicate it as a National Cemetery. The main orator, Edward Everett of Massachusetts, delivered a two-hour formal address. The president then had his turn. He spoke in his high, penetrating voice, and in a little over two minutes delivered this speech, surprising everyone by its brevity and leaving many quite unimpressed at first. Over time, however, this speech with its ending - government of the People, by the People, for the People - has come to symbolize the definition of democracy itself.

1.  What do you notice about the length of the speech?
It's very short
2.  What do you notice about the organisation?
It starts off with a 1 sentence paragraph and then the paragraphs get longer each time
3.  What do you think is the thesis of the speech?
To commemorate the people who died in the war
4.  Name two techniques (with quotes) which you feel are successfully employed and discuss why you feel they are so effective.
1st person inclusive is used "we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground". This is successfully employed because it makes them feel as if they are part of the speech.
Repetition is also used in "of the people, by the people, for the people".
5.  Why do you think that the concluding statement is considered so important and powerful by many Americans to this day?
It says that united as a nation they will not perish.

Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Identify the important technique he employs to win over his audience.
Rhetorical Question

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Julius Ceasar III.ii.82–96

1. Read the following speech and determine what form reasoning (from Aristotle) he is using in her argument. Give quotes to support your decision.
Logos, because he says all these good things he did e.g. "When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept"
2.What is the 'thesis' (main point) of her speech. Give the sentence you feel serves as the thesis.
He is trying to show that Caesar was an honourable man even though Brutus, who is also an honourable man, said he was ambitious. He is trying to make them remember all the good Caesar did for them which they have forgotten.
3. Divide the speech into three parts: Intro, Body, Conclusion
Intro:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ... The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it ...
Body:
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral ...
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
Conclusion:
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Highlight the text where you see the techniques below being used in the speech. When highlighting the text in the speech where one of these techniques is used use the colour provided.

• Repetition
• Exaggeration/Hyperbole
• Generalizations
• Clichés
• Statistics/Distortion of facts
• Imperatives
• Emotive words
• Use of imagery/symbolism
• Puns
• Use of endorsements/testimonials
• Rhetorical questions
• Inclusive language
• Euphemism 

Pathos, Logos, or Ethos? - Susan B. Anthony and Women's Right to Vote

1.  Read the following speech and determine what form of logical reasoning (from Aristotle) she is using in her argument. Give quotes to support your decision.
Logos.  "I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny."
2.  What is the 'thesis' (main point) of her speech. Give the sentence you feel serves as the thesis
She didn't actually commit a crime by voting. "It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting"
3.  Divide the speech into three parts: Intro, Body, Conclusion
Intro:
Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.
Body:

The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot.
For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity.
To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.
Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.

Conclusion:
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.

Highlight the text where you see the techniques below being used in the speech. When highlighting the text in the speech where one of these techniques is used.

• Repetition
• Exaggeration/Hyperbole
• Generalizations
• Clichés
• Statistics/Distortion of facts
• Imperatives
• Emotive words
• Use of imagery/symbolism
• Puns
• Use of endorsements/testimonials
• Rhetorical questions
• Inclusive language
• Euphemism 

Aristotle's 3 modes of persuasion: Pathos, Logos, Ethos

1.   Define the following in a new blog post: Aristotle's 3 modes of persuasion: Pathos, Logos, Ethos.

Ethos:            convincing by the character of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone worth listening to, in other words making yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect.


Pathos:          persuading by appealing to the reader's emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice affects the audience's emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument.


Logos:           persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing.

2.   Choose a speech and try to figure out which of the three is the predominant type of persuasion. Do this by first describing what the speaker is trying to persuade of their audience.

Queen Elizabeth's speech:
The speaker is trying to persuade people to fight for they're country which i think needs to touch people's emotions so this speech must be Pathos

Inserting Yourself in a Speech - 'Any Given Sunday

1. How does Al Pacino's character talk about himself in his speech?
He says that he's old, he made plenty of wrong choices, he chased away those who loved him and he lost all his money which demotes him.
2. What effect does this have on the speech? (Use Quotes in your answer).
It gives them inspiration so they do well where he failed, he says in the speech "you only learn that when you start losing stuff. You find out that life is just a game of inches."

ANY GIVEN SUNDAY SPEECH

I don't know what to say really. <-- 1st person
Three minutes to the biggest battle of our professional lives 1st person/collective
all comes down to today. moment, urgency
Either
we heal
as a team
or we are going to crumble.
Inch by inch repetition
play by play till we're finished.
We are in hell right now, gentlemen
believe me
and
we can stay here
and get the shit kicked out of us imagery - biblical illusion
or
we can fight our way
back into the light.
We can climb out of hell.
One inch, at a time.

Now I can't do it for you. <-- first person
I'm too old.
I look around and I see these young faces
and I think
I mean
I made every wrong choice a middle age man could make.
I uh....
I pissed away all my money
believe it or not.
I chased off anyone who has ever loved me.
And lately, I can't even stand the face I see in the mirror.

You know when you get old in life things get taken from you. Second Person
That's, that's part of life. <--2nd person
But, you only learn that when you start losing stuff.
You find out that life is just a game of inches.
So is football.
Because in either game life or football
the margin for error is so small.
I mean, one half step too late or to early
you don't quite make it.
One half second too slow or too fast
and you don't quite catch it.
The inches we need are everywhere around us. <-- 1st person
They are in ever break of the game
every minute, every second.

On this team, we fight for that inch. <-- 1st person
On this team, we tear ourselves, and everyone around us
to pieces for that inch.
We CLAW with our fingernails for that inch.
Cause we know,
when we add up all those inches
that's going to make the fucking difference
between WINNING and LOSING
between LIVING and DYING. PEAK

I'll tell you this <-- 2nd person
in any fight
it is the guy who is willing to die
who is going to win that inch.
And I know if I am going to have any life anymore <-- what he knows
it is because, I am still willing to fight, and die for that inch
because that is what LIVING is.
The six inches in front of your face.

Now I can't make you do it. <--2nd person
You gotta look at the guy next to you.
Look into his eyes.
Now I think you are going to see a guy who will go that inch with you.
You are going to see a guy who will sacrifice himself for this team
because he knows when it comes down to it,
you are gonna do the same thing for him.

That's a team, gentlemen <-- 1st person
and either we heal now, as a team,
or we will die as individuals.
That's football guys.
That's all it is.
Now, whattaya gonna do?




3. How does Queen Elizabeth talk about herself in this speech? (use quotes in your answer)
She says she is physically weak but she is strong at heart. "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king"
4. Why do you think this is an effective way to refer to herself?
It shows that she knows her weaknesses and is strong enough to admit them and she wishes she could be with them but she isn't good enough to help them which inspires them as it makes them feel strong.

Speech to the Troops at Tilbury 1

My loving people,

        We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; (fear of a traitor) but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. (sense of connection with people). Let tyrants fear (They shouldn't surrender), I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects (TRUST) ; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. (physical presence shows her support and commitment to cause). I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king (physically weak, mentally and internally strong and commited, humility is powerful), and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field (appreciates efforts of soldiers - showing personal responsibility). I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general2 shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people (repetition).