Introduction
Introduction is the most important part of a propaganda speech, since it is at the beginning of your speech that you can win over the audience, feel their reaction, and develop a further line of behavior. The introduction should define the purpose as well as provide an explanation of your chosen topic. In the initial stage of a speech, it is important to set the stage for the audience to facilitate further communication and elicit a positive reaction. This can be done in several ways. First, in order to attract the audience's attention, you need to include humor in your speech. At the same time, the quality of humor must correspond to the selected audience. If you are not gifted with a sense of humor, then it is better not to take risks, but to quote a famous person whose opinion the audience will definitely listen to.
Secondly, try to create an atmosphere of reconciliation, that is, develop a common basis for agreement. In this case, it is important to explain to the listeners that you and them are united by a common goal and task, that you have no desire to impose anything. The main thing is to create a long-term contact with the audience and maintain it until the end of your speech. Smile more, use gestures of kindness. Frequently ask challenging questions that require a mandatory response. Your goal in an introduction is to interest the listener.
Increasing electrical capacity
Electability is the willingness of some people to vote like the majority or not to be active at all if they understand that their candidate will certainly lose the election. To increase the electoral power of the desired candidate, polling results are often published that show that he is already winning in the majority opinion.
*An example of an information leaflet with a rating of deputies of the Kamensk-Uralsky City Duma based on likes on social networks
What to learn?
Yes, you can't mention your direct competitors, but you can use indirect comparisons. For example: “Every 10th resident of the area changes their tires with us” or “97.6% of customers are satisfied with cooperation with us.”
Propaganda public speech
3) Are there enough examples given? If it is known that all the phenomena of a particular group about which inferences are made are identical, then one example is sufficient to justify the generalization. This will be correct in relation to the chemical experiment. In this case, carefully measured elements are placed in a test tube and a conclusion is drawn about the results that occur in all cases with the same combination of elements. But the chemist will carry out the experiment more than once to make sure that the conclusion is correct.
The solution to the question of whether enough examples have been taken depends on their number, the method of selection and variability. Taking two cases of juvenile delinquency at random, one cannot yet come to the conclusion that all or most of the juvenile delinquents are mentally handicapped. There are many thousands of juvenile delinquents in the country; When selecting several examples, chance will play a big role: minors, like all people in general, are very different.
4) Are the examples typical? This type of verification is directly related to the above. Whether examples are sufficient or not depends on how typical they are.
5) Are there negative examples that should be taken into account? A negative is an example that does not support the conclusion; he is an exception to the rule. If listeners are aware of such a negative example that falls outside the speaker's field of vision, they may, for this reason alone, reject the entire speech. The safest rule is to pay attention to negative examples depending on their meaning. Whenever statistical summary data is discussed, negative examples should be given a clear and precise form. Often it is enough to present the conclusion itself in statistical or other form and give an explanation of how the data was obtained (inference).
b) Analogy
The main option for generalization is a conclusion from particular to particular. This is an analogy, or inference by analogy. Two objects that are similar to each other are, at least from some point of view, similar. By noticing similarities and concluding that similar objects are identical in other respects, reasoning by analogy occurs. It is necessary to distinguish between analogy in the literal sense of the word, when the objects being compared are basically of the same order; but there is also a figurative analogy, noting similarities in objects of different orders, for example: do not throw pearls before swine (hence, you cannot squander the truth before fools). It is clearly seen here that, since there is an essential difference between beads and truth, pigs and fools, the figurative analogy has only rhetorical and not logical value. It is quite natural that such an analogy, used as an illustration, gives the description a more animated appearance, but it would be clearly erroneous to use it as proof. Not many literal analogies are as logical as they seem, as we will see later.
Analogy check:
Two methods should be used to thoroughly test each analogy:
1) Is it really appropriate to compare phenomena?
2) Is there any significant difference between them?
Two or more phenomena may be substantially similar and yet differ in the lack of similarity necessary from the point of view of the position being proven. The truth is that there is no complete logical analogy, for there are no two completely identical sets of circumstances. Therefore, analogy can rarely be used without resorting to other types of evidence.
c) Inference about causal dependence
The inference about causal dependence plays a particularly important role in the speech of the agitator. It is he who most often has to talk about changing phenomena. An inference about a cause is a logical reasoning about a change: it represents the conclusion that, given a given state of affairs, the result will be this or that (inference from cause to effect) or that a given state of affairs is caused by known other conditions (inference from effect to cause). A variant of these types of inference will be a conclusion from effect to effect, if both have one common cause.
In conclusion from cause to effect, the cause is known and the effect is deduced from it
Example: The price of oil has risen, therefore, the price of petroleum products will rise.
In conclusion from effect to cause, the effect is known and a conclusion is drawn about the cause:
Example: Workers at industrial enterprises where additional cash payments have been introduced for exceeding the plan have higher labor productivity than at enterprises where there is no material incentive; therefore, money is the cause of the difference in labor productivity.
In conclusion, from consequence to consequence, one of them is known, the other is deduced from the known:
Example: The armies of states A and B have moved towards a common border, therefore, war is approaching.
Checking the inference about the cause:
In every controversial case of inference of causal dependence, the following rules of verification must be applied, although they sometimes overlap.
1) Does a putative effect occur when there is no putative cause? If the answer is “yes,” then you cannot claim that the antecedent is the only possible cause. Either there is no connection between the two phenomena, or there is another possible reason.
2) Is the supposed effect absent when the supposed cause is present? If the answer is “yes,” then you cannot claim that the subsequent event is the only possible consequence. Either there is no connection between the two phenomena, or there is another possible consequence.
Until the very end of the last century, the prevailing belief was that people became ill with tropical fever by becoming infected from waste containing fever germs. However, based on numerous bold experiments under the leadership of the military doctor Walter, it was established (test No. 1) that tropical fever (the supposed consequence) arose in the absence of any contact with an environment contaminated with microbes. Walter also proved (check No. 2) that people who had constant contact with an environment contaminated with microbes did not get sick. Through the same experiments, he established that tropical fever is contracted by the bite of a mosquito, a carrier of fever germs.
If the conditions posed in relation to each other as cause and effect can be isolated and tested by experiment, as was the case with the tropical fever experiments, the two methods of testing just given are sufficient to show the incorrectness of the conclusions. But the facts included in the content of most speeches do not lend themselves to such research, and therefore additional verification techniques are needed.
3) Is not the only connection between an effect and its supposed cause only the accidental occurrence of one after the other? This method helps to identify a characteristic fallacy in inference about cause, well known by the Latin name post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This error represents a form of careless generalization of fragmentary information. It is the result of the innate predisposition of people to succumb to the most striking aspects of phenomena as evidence. The incorrect conclusion “after this, therefore...” lies at the heart of superstitions and in most cases explains their persistence even among educated people. A black cat crossed the road, and the next day the man broke his leg. People tend to forget a lot of other cases when a black cat also crossed the road - and there were no sad consequences. Of course, there may be a causal connection between antecedent and subsequent phenomena, even if it cannot be explained.
4) Are there other possible reasons? The exciting cause or immediate cause of the phenomenon seems more obvious than the main cause. A superficial speaker reasons: “Lack of business trust is the reason for leaving the enterprise.” Avoiding root cause identification is a common form of trickery, such as the following:
For the fact that I was not accepted into the educational institution, the member of the admissions committee who gave me an unimportant mark should be blamed.
In the field of social sciences and human behavior we encounter a variety of causes. This or that person commits a crime not only because he was in poor material conditions, or does not have the proper education, or grew up in an unsuccessful family environment (parents are divorced, etc.), or suffers from mental disability. It is most likely that all or most of these reasons, and not just one, determined the crime.
5) Are there other possible consequences? In most cases, a conclusion from cause to effect is actually a prediction of future events. In such cases, absolute verification is not possible. Forces that have not yet openly come into play and are unrecognizable can counteract existing factors. In almost all judgments about historical catastrophes, one can detect an error in inferences from cause to effect.
Since the conclusion from cause to effect has in mind the future, it is subject to the influence of arbitrary thinking, that is, thinking that is determined by desires and aspirations. By indulging voluntary thinking, the speaker will be able to gain temporary general support. But such luck will come at the cost of loss of trust and respect. Such damage, not always felt by the individual speaker, generally reduces respect for those who have taken on the burden of public speaking.
d) Deduction, or inference from a general position
Deduction is the shortest path to knowledge. This is its characteristic advantage. Phenomena that we ourselves or others have comprehended through generalization acquire the meaning of a general rule that we need for further knowledge. For example, what we know about gravitation is a working principle, which we daily apply without inductively testing it.
The deduction is simple in the sense that it consists of three propositions:
1) a general provision called a major premise;
2) the judgment associated with it, leading to its application under the name of a minor premise;
3) conclusions.
The entire three-step process is called a syllogism.
Deductive methods are usually used in combination with inductive or other deductive techniques. Either the major or minor premise is established by induction and then proceeds to the next stage. Or the conclusion of one syllogism can serve as a premise for another syllogism, or a merger of syllogisms that have a common conclusion is possible.
It is not common to state all three stages of the deductive process in formal sequence. In the summary they are also not given in this order; The conclusion comes first here, and the premises follow as subordinate theses. A small premise can precede a large one, as can be seen from the example given:
I. Citrus fruits are essential for maintaining health.
Conclusion.
A. Citrus fruits contain vitamin C.
Small package.
B. Foods containing vitamin C are essential for maintaining health.
Big package.
It is very rarely advisable to construct the main section of a speech only in deductive terms. Self-contained arguments such as the following deservedly invite accusations of subterfuge and sophistry:
According to the sixth commandment, one must not kill; The death penalty is murder, therefore the death penalty is unacceptable.
These arguments may be impressive, but they are not sufficient for the listener. If nothing but these considerations are given, he will reject them, since the sixth commandment refers only to unlawful killing. At the very least, the listener will want to know whether the practice can follow such a superficially interpreted commandment.
Deductive conclusions are tested in two ways:
1) Are the premises correct?
2) Does this conclusion follow from them?
Although the art of using syllogisms is of immeasurable value for a speaker, it is hardly advisable to resort to it without studying the methods of argument and a course in logic.
ERRORS IN JUDGMENT
Perhaps nothing is more costly for a speaker than to be exposed in incorrect judgments. One mistake and the entire speech will fail, especially if the audience is critical or distrustful. The first three errors, given below, relate to the very essence of statements, the rest - to the ways of applying statements in the process of judgment.
a) Statements that are mistakenly considered correct:
False statements may lie in the major premises or in the general beliefs on which the deduction is based. They may also be in particular examples that form the subject of discussion. Arguments based on an incorrect assumption are the most common of all erroneous judgments. It is quite easy to pay attention to the most obvious, unconditional statements that careless and unthinking people throw out in private conversations and in public speeches.
Although it is necessary to rely on generally accepted truths and often state them as such, without proof, yet after a careful selection of popular half-truths and prejudices it will be found that there are much fewer such truths than many people think.
b) Statements unacceptable to listeners:
A speaker may be satisfied with a statement as being true, but before using it without evidence, he must decide whether it is sufficiently obvious to the audience.
The issue of inappropriate statements touches on the entire issue of audience research and the appropriate use of authoritative statements and statistics. Simply saying that “statistics prove...” or “well-known authorities believe...”, “investigation has shown...” will do nothing if the listeners are critical.
Tags
ORATORICAL ART is the standard of oratory skill.
listeners make talk due back what the article more than years was the image of the following topics political cities courses has the words of the site all the development of a certain eloquence the conclusion of the law materials news withdrawal of funds campaign
| Public speech is one of the forms of business interaction and art, about which it is said: “There are few good speakers, but how many people in the world are able to listen to them” (J. La Bruyère); “In speech, a word is an expression of thought... and therefore the word must correspond to what it expresses” (L.N. Tolstoy). |
N reasons to vote Yes
These types of leaflets list several reasons to choose a particular candidate. In this case, the bet is on the fact that different types of target audience vote for one candidate or another for different reasons, and if there are several such motives, then the campaign will find a greater response.
*Example of leaflet 5 reasons to vote for candidates deputies Morozov and Kitaev.
Argumentation is divided into rational - it operates with facts and is based on logic, and emotional - such arguments appeal to feelings and contain techniques from fiction, rather than specific numbers.
Example of Chaplin's text
Charlie Chaplin's speech test is called in Russian translation “How I fell in love with myself” and has become our history and the main speech of a person. He said it on his seventieth birthday.
True, there are rumors that in fact the example text could have been written by fans from Brazil. There is no clear evidence that this is the work of Charlie Chaplin, nor is there clear evidence of forgery.
Despite this, the speech on the topic of self-love turned out great and deserves attention - an example that can be used for your own purposes.
“As I began to love myself, I realized that sadness and suffering are only warning signs that I am living against my own truth. Today I know that it is called “BEING YOURSELF.”
When I fell in love with myself, I realized how much you can offend someone if you impose on him the fulfillment of my own desires, when the time has not yet come, and the person is not yet ready, and this person is myself. Today I call it “SELF-RESPECT”.
When I fell in love with myself, I stopped wanting a different life, and suddenly I saw that the life that surrounds me now provides me with every opportunity for growth. Today I call it “MATURITY”.
As I began to love myself, I realized that no matter what the circumstances, I am in the right place at the right time, and everything happens at exactly the right moment. I can always be calm. Now I call it “SELF CONFIDENCE.”
As I began to love myself, I stopped stealing my own time and dreaming about big future projects. Today I only do what brings me joy and makes me happy, what I love and what makes my heart smile. I do it the way I want and at my own pace. Today I call it SIMPLICITY.
When I fell in love with myself, I freed myself from everything that harms my health - food, people, things, situations. Everything that brought me down and took me away from my own path. Today I call it “SELF-LOVE.”
When I began to love myself, I stopped always being right. And that’s when I started making fewer and fewer mistakes. Today I realized that this is “HUMILITY”.
When I fell in love with myself, I stopped living in the past and worrying about the future. Today I live only in the present moment and call it “SATISFACTION”.
When I began to love myself, I realized that my mind could interfere with me, that it could even make me sick. But when I was able to connect him to my heart, he immediately became a valuable ally. Today I call this connection “WISDOM OF THE HEART.”
We no longer need to be afraid of disputes, confrontations, problems with ourselves and with other people. Even stars collide, and new worlds are born from their collisions. Today I know that this is “LIFE”.
