Deliberative Speaking
Aims to answer the question:
“What shall we do?”
Topics are oriented toward action that
will address or alleviate a problem.
Deliberative Purposes
 Reinforce or strengthen existing belief
 Weaken current belief
 Conversion – move from uncommitted to
acceptance
Invention
Needs to result in a CLAIM – Your Thesis
Arrangement
To prove thesis, you’ll need to walk us
through your argument.
Identify Main Ideas
Use your work on stasis to do this:
Prove to us there’s a problem.
Define it.
Why is the current situation
unacceptable?
What’s causing it?
How do we fix it?
Can you prove your fix will work?
Shaping your argument
Formal Rhetorical Proof
Claim
the statement you want your audience to accept
Data
extrinsic proof for your claim
Warrant (Reasoning)
Links the supporting material to the claim so that you and your
listeners can decide whether the evidence really does support the
claim; the MAJOR PREMISE.
Claim
 The statement that you want the
audience to accept; it is what you are
trying to prove. This is what you are
asking the audience to assent to.
Three basic types of claims:
Fact
Value
Policy
Claim of Fact
~Smoking causes cancer.
~The price of oil was a major factor in
the fall of the Soviet Union.
~This year’s federal deficit will be
larger than last year’s.
Claim of Value
Asserts that something is good or bad,
right or wrong:
~Embryonic research compromises
the value of human life.
~Capital punishment is immoral.
~Bombing civilian targets is wrong.
Claim of Policy
Asserts that a proposed action should
or should not be pursued:
~The draft should be reinstated.
~Concealed carry should be outlawed.
~The drinking age should be lowered
to 19 for beer and wine.
Examples of each
 The United States is ranked highest in
the world for gun ownership. (fact)
 Americans’ intractability on tightening
gun laws makes a dangerous claim that
we value guns more than our children’s
safety. (value)
 The right to own a gun should not be
limited. (policy)
Data/Evidence
Provides evidence for your CLAIM
Facts
Statistics
Testimony
Example
Narrative
Developing Reasoning
 Deductive
Major premise or warrant (a general rule or
belief held of the audience)
A Minor premise or Data statement
(assertion of fact or value)
A Conclusion or CLAIM
This is how deductive reasoning works, but see how it
plays out in a main idea:
Claim, Evidence,Warrant
Example
 Claim: Harry is a British subject.
 Evidence: Harry was born in Bermuda
 Warrant: Persons born in Bermuda are
British subjects.
Sample format:
creating proof
Main Idea/CLAIM
--Facts, stats
--Testimony
--Example
Restate original assertion
RESULT: CREATION OF PROOF
Sample Thesis
To be credible about its belief in the value
of the American family, the United States
must join other developed nations by
guaranteeing paid maternity leave and
making childcare affordable.
Main Ideas
Compared to other countries in the world, the
United States is a hostile place to raise a family
 A year of childcare is the same as a year of college
tuition; in some states the cost would include room
and board. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/20/thestates-with-the-most-and-least-expensive-child-care/)
 We are the only developed nation in the world that
doesn’t guarantee paid parental leave for the birth or
adoption of a child.
Main Ideas
Leaders in the U.S. rightly argue about the importance of
the American family to the nation’s well-being.
 The stability of the family drives success
 Educational prosperity
 Economic prosperity
 Community prosperity
 For every dollar invested in programs that help
families, seven are saved
 Physical and mental healthcare
 Crime
 Education
Main Ideas
To abide by our moral obligations and to increase our
economic competitiveness, the United States should join
other advanced economies by mandating paid leave for
new parents (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/15/422957640/lots-ofother-countries-mandate-paid-leave-why-not-the-us)
and creating policies that improve the quality and
affordability of child care
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/five-shocking-facts-about-child-care-in-the-unitedstates/).
Fallacy
 An inference that appears to be
sound, but that, on inspection,
contains a significant flaw.
 Here are some examples:
Ad Hominem/Attack on the Person Instead
of the Argument – Focuses on the character
flaws of a person and not on the issues; includes
name-calling.
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have
to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the
Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
In response to an argument made
by a woman:
“Is it that time of the month?”
Either -Or – sets up false alternatives; if
one is rejected, the other must be accepted;
forces listeners to choose between two
alternatives when more than two exist.
“You’re either with us, or you’re
against us.”
“The government must
either raise taxes or
reduce services to the poor.”
Post hoc/False Cause – mistakenly
assumes that one event causes another
because they occur sequentially
“John Kerry lost the 2004 election
because Osama bin Laden released a
threatening tape the weekend
before the election.”
Appeal to Misplaced Authority –
involves relying on the testimony of
someone who is not an authority in the
case being argued
“Ahmed Chalabi assured us that our
suspicions about WMD are correct
and that our plan will lead to
success in Iraq.”
Bandwagon – everyone else is doing it—
widespread acceptance of an idea is no
guarantee of its validity
“The President must be correct. Sixty
percent of Americans polled agree
with him.”
Red Herring – Using an issue to distract
from the main idea
“Why are we focusing on cell phones
as the cause of accident when other
things like eating, playing with the
radio and even reading are just as
guilty?”
Non-sequitur – It does not follow; reason
has nothing to do with argument
“Give blood because the semester’s
almost over.”
Circular Argument/Begging the
Question – The claim merely restates,
in different terms, what is already given.
“The difference between gay marriage
and civil unions is that they’re not
the same.”
Equivocation – Use of ambiguous terms to
mislead an audience regarding what is
actually being claimed.
“These aren’t new taxes, they’re just changes in the taxes we
already have.”
“I did not have sexual relations
with that woman.”
“You know, I can't say with certitude. My system was hacked.
Pictures can be manipulated, pictures can be dropped in and
inserted."
Straw man/person – when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be
attacked more easily, knock down that
misrepresented position

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a
distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


"Senator Jones says that we should not
fund the attack submarine program. I
disagree entirely. I can't understand
why he wants to leave us
defenseless like that."
Slippery Slope – rejecting a proposed
action on the grounds that, once the
action is taken, it will lead inevitably to
another, less desirable action, which will
lead to another…
“And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to
(gay) consensual sex within your home, then you have the
right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have
the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You
have the right to anything. Does that undermine the
fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all
comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that
doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States
Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in
Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and
abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the
further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom
actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well,
it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic
unit of our society because it condones behavior that's
antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's
polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of
those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable,
traditional family.”
Overstating the Case – when a speaker
fails to distinguish between probability
and certainty, or phrases the claim in
terms that are not supported by the
evidence given.
“Television is turning America into a
nation of killers.”
Oversimplification – when a speaker
ignores the complexity of an issue or
argument and to push the real issue
aside
“Do you want the United States to win
in Iraq?”
Using Emotion
 Emotional appeals are intended to
make listeners feel sad, angry,
guilty, afraid, proud….
 Typically used for questions of value
or policy
 Examples of emotions and subjects that
stir them:
Fear – Avian flu, terrorist attacks, harm to
loved ones, communism
Compassion – starving children, physically
disabled
Pride – in one’s country, family, school,
heritage
Anger – at terrorists, criminals, politicians
who exploit their power, Wall Street
Emotion and Ethics
 Can use of emotional appeals cross an
ethical line?
 What is the responsibility of the speaker
or the listener in discerning the validity
or importance of emotional appeals?