Question
reply with 0 plagiarism score to
Discussion 6: Persuasive Speeches
by MissTeddy Romain - Monday, 10 February 2025, 7:20 AM
Number of replies: 2
Hello class,
It’s interesting that I’ve quoted this before and did not know of this individual. The quote is certain hotspots in an argument used to raise ethical questions of an argument. The use of reasons that sound good fallacies are flawed like ad hominem. Think of the presidential debates when Trump is asked a question and he’ll attack his opponent to steer the audience away from the truth or the question asked. He usually give reasons that sound good to manipulate or confuse his audience rather than making a sound argument. I like using good and sound reasons to persuade someone because logical reasoning (good and sound reason) are delivered with truth and facts while (reasons that sound good) are sometimes used to scare people into believing it’s fact. Another example, around Covid when the vaccine was invented, People were saying “don’t take the vaccine, it’s the mark of the beast! Some people are dying from it”. It’s a logic fallacy because there’s no factual basis to it. I think they work because they seem true or they sound reasonable. The audience is easily influenced by the words, especially if there’s some kind of action that may help induce fear.
Discussion 6: Persuasive Speeches
by MissTeddy Romain - Monday, 10 February 2025, 7:20 AM
Number of replies: 2
Hello class,
It’s interesting that I’ve quoted this before and did not know of this individual. The quote is certain hotspots in an argument used to raise ethical questions of an argument. The use of reasons that sound good fallacies are flawed like ad hominem. Think of the presidential debates when Trump is asked a question and he’ll attack his opponent to steer the audience away from the truth or the question asked. He usually give reasons that sound good to manipulate or confuse his audience rather than making a sound argument. I like using good and sound reasons to persuade someone because logical reasoning (good and sound reason) are delivered with truth and facts while (reasons that sound good) are sometimes used to scare people into believing it’s fact. Another example, around Covid when the vaccine was invented, People were saying “don’t take the vaccine, it’s the mark of the beast! Some people are dying from it”. It’s a logic fallacy because there’s no factual basis to it. I think they work because they seem true or they sound reasonable. The audience is easily influenced by the words, especially if there’s some kind of action that may help induce fear.
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
**Discussion 6: Persuasive Speeches**
Hello everyone,
I found your post quite intriguing, especially your reference to the way arguments can manipulate audiences by playing on emotions rather than using solid reasoning. The example you provided about presidential debates highlights how some individuals divert attention from critical issues by attacking their opponents instead of addressing the questions put forth. This tactic can effectively distract viewers, often leading to a misunderstanding of the actual debate topics.
When it comes to persuasion, I also believe that sound logic and factual evidence are vital. Utilizing well-researched arguments garners trust and allows for a more honest discussion. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, some approaches rely on misleading statements designed to instill fear or uncertainty in the audience, as seen during the pandemic with the vaccine misinformation.
Ultimately, while fallacies may initially seem convincing, grounding arguments in truth and factuality creates a more robust case. Audiences are more likely to trust and engage with messages that are clearly articulated and backed by credible evidence. It’s essential to remain vigilant and critical of the arguments presented to us, recognizing that emotional appeals, while powerful, can sometimes lead to misguided beliefs.
Hello everyone,
I found your post quite intriguing, especially your reference to the way arguments can manipulate audiences by playing on emotions rather than using solid reasoning. The example you provided about presidential debates highlights how some individuals divert attention from critical issues by attacking their opponents instead of addressing the questions put forth. This tactic can effectively distract viewers, often leading to a misunderstanding of the actual debate topics.
When it comes to persuasion, I also believe that sound logic and factual evidence are vital. Utilizing well-researched arguments garners trust and allows for a more honest discussion. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, some approaches rely on misleading statements designed to instill fear or uncertainty in the audience, as seen during the pandemic with the vaccine misinformation.
Ultimately, while fallacies may initially seem convincing, grounding arguments in truth and factuality creates a more robust case. Audiences are more likely to trust and engage with messages that are clearly articulated and backed by credible evidence. It’s essential to remain vigilant and critical of the arguments presented to us, recognizing that emotional appeals, while powerful, can sometimes lead to misguided beliefs.
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!