Speeches, we dread listening to boring ones; we are inspired by good ones; we even take action by persuasive ones. For those of you who fear standing before an audience, perhaps you should consider the importance of speeches in determining or at least depicting the course of history. Most of our speeches may never rise to that level, but I can justifiably say that the speech you give to will impact someone. History is littered with speeches of power and influence.

Hitler versus Churchill

As recently as WWII, speeches played a major role in that catastrophe. Adolf Hitler roused his nation to extreme depravities of evil. Powerful in word though evil at heart, Hitler, like tyrants who came before him, used his persuasive powers to turn the German nation against all that is good. Though not all ideas were his alone, he spoke persuasively and with power.

On the other side of the English Channel, Winston Churchill persuaded England to resist Hitler’s tyrannies. His speeches reflected his own dogged determination not to give in to the pressure of what seemed like certain defeat. While Hitler inflamed hatred and war, Churchill inspired courage and steadfastness. The soul of each nation, for good or evil, depended on the power of the public addresses of each man.

Speeches Matter

The Greek historian, Herodotus, when writing about the Persian wars (Persian Wars 9:26-27), tells how two sides of the Greek army gave speeches to justify their right to defend a particular territory in their battle with the Persians. Of course, each speech was a rationale for each side, but the fact is, their words (a debate of sorts) provided the ideas used by each side to defend and sustain their efforts. Other ancient historians also provide such speeches that reflect turning points in history.

More recent history would point to Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” Though delivered after the battle, the speech has provided history with the president’s reflections of why the battle, and indeed the entire Civil War, was fought. We must also turn to Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Delivered during the struggle to obtain civil rights for all people, it represented the ideals of the civil rights movement and became a seminal moment to define what that movement was all about.

Even the New Testament

Even the New Testament provides speeches to represent transitions to new eras and to explain new ways of life. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is the most notable, and Peter’s first sermon on Pentecost ranks high on this list of important watershed speeches. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 also illustrates the culmination of conflict between those who accepted Christ as the Messiah and those who didn’t. Stephen suffered martyrdom, and persecution quickly broke out against the church. We should also mention the Apostle Paul’s presentation to the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17, a truly watershed event since the crowd’s reaction reflects what the well-educated thought about the message of the Gospel and perhaps still think of it today.

Perhaps you will never have the opportunity to make history by your speech, but don’t sell your message short. Any speech can make even minor changes in people’s lives. Speeches always have and always will. Learn to value the importance of giving a speech.

© Robert T. Weber, Words Done Right LLC

Several writing classes I’ve taught required the students to compose an argument paper. I made them choose from a list of famous quotes and defend or deny one of them. I always introduced the project by lecturing on the difference between an assertion and an argument. Too many students don’t know which is which, and I suspect there is a general ignorance about them.

Defined

Most arguments we encounter are heated, sometimes loud, and angry expressions of differing opinions and beliefs. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines an argument also as “a statement given to explain a belief.” The key word being explain.

An assertion, on the other hand, thanks again to Webster, is “an idea or opinion that is put forth in a discussion.” Although the word assertion carries an overtone of aggressiveness, for my thought here, we will think of an assertion merely as a statement. It can be a statement of fact, belief, or opinion. An assertion is merely a statement without any attempt to demonstrate its veracity; no reasons are given to prove it.

Differentiated

To get to the heart of many communication problems, we must realize that a statement may or may not contribute to a speaker’s reason for the issue at hand. In order to flesh out our definition of argument, we turn also to the American Heritage Dictionary: “a fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason.” Assuming a speaker has offered evidence for her statement, we now come closer to the kind of argument I expected out of my students.

We have also come closer to understanding three of the things necessary for a speaker to persuade his audience: credibility of the speaker, an emotional appeal to the listeners, and logic or sound reasoning. Thank you Aristotle for giving us the three pillars of a good speech: ethos, pathos, and logos. A good argument should contain all of these, but at the least the credibility of the speaker and the logic of her reason are essential. Otherwise, all we have are assertions without backup.

Diagnosed

At least three defects reflect an argument gone haywire. First, hogging the discussion and appealing merely to the prejudices and emotions of the audience. Some people are so assertive and talkative others have no opportunity to disagree. These are people who love to hear themselves talk and to express their opinions. Author Thomas Sowell criticized the talkativeness of many academics and politicians as “so-called ‘thinking people’ . . . whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic.” ¹

Second, a corollary of the first is to allow no dissenting voice. It can be as subtle as not listening and responding to others or as crass as silencing the opposition. We are all witnesses of people who’ve either been bullied off the stage or not given the right to express themselves on college campuses. No statements but those held sacred by the mob are allowed.

The third is degrading the opponent. One of my previous posts dealt with the problem of the ad-hominem attack, an attack on the person rather than the argument. By it, one humiliates his opponent by defamation of character and even slander. Name-calling is part and parcel of this. It pigeonholes the opposition with negative names that assume a prejudice and false motive. Nazi is one of the favorites.

Discovered

There are perhaps other problems uncovered in arguments that don’t seek reasons for unsubstantiated assertions. Everyone has opinions; not everyone has good reason for holding them. If you haven’t run across the Four Deadly Questions, you might want to familiarize yourself with one of them: “How do you know that is true?” Without any attempt to provide a solid reason for a statement, you have discovered that you are dealing with unfounded assertions, not valid arguments.

¹ Quoted by Marvin Olasky in World Magazine, January 21, 2017

© 2023 Robert T. Weber, Words Done Right LLC

I am indebted to my friend Ron Deffenbaugh for sharing this information with me. Recently Ron taught some of us about Stephen Covey’s 30 Methods of Influence (30 Methods of Influence By Stephen Covey (lifeisinlife1.blogspot.com). Because these ideas reflect some Aristotelian ideas, they fit in with my fourth week post where I address ideas found in the early masters of public speaking. Aristotle proposed three pillars of making a speech: ethos, pathos, and logos. Covey’s ideas of influence are closely based on those three things.

Ethos: Things Seen

Where Aristotle asserted that a speaker must be a person of ethics (ethos), Covey says the first order of influence are our moral behaviors, things that people see in us. For example, we must refrain from unkind words, exercise patience, keep our promises, and live the law of love. Each of these goes straight to the influence a person exhibits. Do people see you as an ethical person? Do you keep your word? How do you speak to others, especially those who are under your authority? It seems that Aristotle was on to something when he suggested that personal ethics carries a lot of influence. Covey agrees.

Pathos: Things Felt

We have taken the Greek word, pathos, directly into English vocabulary. It means an emotion of sympathetic pity. Even the word sympathy uses the Greek root, and we get the words pathetic and its opposite, apathetic, also in English. Each one carries a component of feelings. Aristotle believed that there were times in an influential speech that legitimate appeal to emotions helped persuade the listeners.

Stephen Covey also understands that in order to influence people, you often must appeal to their emotions. Being an accepting and understanding person goes a long way in breaking down barriers of resistance. For example, he encourages us to admit mistakes and ask for forgiveness. Furthermore, look for things we have in common with others. Commonality builds bridges of emotional influence. Marketers recognize the combination of emotional appeal with logic to sell products, and this leads us to the third of Aristotle’s foundations.

Logos: Things Heard

The Greek word, logos, can be simply translated as “word.” Aristotle used it to suggest that reason and logical arguments were also a part of one’s ability to influence. Appealing to personal ethics or emotions were insufficient methods of persuasion without sound reasoning and facts.

Covey calls these things, “items heard.” If we hear others speak inconsistencies and fallacies, we are less inclined to be influenced by them. He encourages people to prepare their minds with good information, to take the time to teach, and to speak the language of logic.

The ancient wisdom of Aristotle still relates to influence today, and we probably use these influences even if we are unaware they come from such an ancient source. Anyone in a position of influence can’t go wrong by living ethically, caring for the feelings of others, and using logic and sound reasoning to communicate ideas. Stephen Covey’s wisdom has expanded Aristotle to help us do just that.

It’s quote week on Words Done Right LLC blog. My wife loves quotes. She keeps a book to record inspirational ones and displays them on her artwork (see her web address and email at the bottom of this page). Don’t you love Taylor Swift’s quote? Like this one, quotes are pithy statements of truths in memorable language. Not only are they inspirational and worthy of posters and plaques, but they also liven up a speech or a piece of writing. Here are a couple of ways to use them.

The Surprise

Let’s say you are arguing for free speech. You have listed your reasons in logical order, appealed to emotional stories of those whose free speech has been infringed, and now you insert a statement from someone of integrity who has wrestled with personal threats to free speech. You quote him: “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants.”

Speech can be denied, scrubbed from the record, or even shouted down if the listeners don’t want to hear the message, but you still want to push your point. Should the audience still doubt the importance of free speech, you briefly explain the quote but hold off the big surprise. When you reach the climax of your message, you tell the audience that it was uttered by a former slave, Frederick Douglass. Surprise! What rang true for Frederick Douglass over 150 years ago still rings true today when many people seek to limit what you can say.

The Memorable

Sometimes others state your idea in a more memorable way. Suppose you want to suggest that fashionable ideas don’t necessarily reflect permanent, good ways of thinking. Once again you marshal your arguments against following trends that often just disappear as quickly as they appear, but you want some way of stating your point in a memorable way. G. K. Chesterton was a British essayist, writer of stories, and master of words. His quote on the subject makes the point for you, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” This doesn’t even need to prove your point; the contrast of fallacies with fashions simply provides a memorable way of giving the audience something to hold on to.

The Proverbial Wisdom

Though some in the audience may have an aversion to ideas that are older than a week, most people appreciate hearing wisdom from the past especially when it rings true or perhaps even challenges modern thought. Here’s one to remind us that anger is destructive: “A gentle answer turns away anger, but a harsh word stirs up wrath.” Even if you don’t mention that this is from The Book of Proverbs 15:1 in the Bible, it might be interesting to point out that these words were spoken by a philosopher king 3,000 years ago. His name was Solomon.

Quotes are a great way to introduce, conclude, or reinforce your point, but I’ve barely scratched the surface of using them to influence and persuade your audience. Use quotes judiciously, but by all means use them.

NOTE: My wife’s website is www.janetredmond-weber.com. In particular see her “Inspirational Gallery” page. Her email is [email protected]. Be careful to include the dash in the web address but not in the email address.

Mark Twain understood the importance of words. He said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” The nuances between some words makes this particularly significant. Understanding words facilitates meaning.

Funny Words

Think about the words for funny. We speak of jokes that are humorous, amusing, and laughable, but we can move to the really funny with riotous, sidesplitting, and hilarious. Some people might even say something was a scream, it killed me, and I fell over laughing. The right word depends of one’s sense of humor and the context of the joke.

The derivation of hilarious comes from the Greek word hilaros and the Latin word hilaro. In those languages the meaning can mean simply cheerful and even gracious. In the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 9:7, the writer uses the Greek version of this word to describe a cheerful giver rather than one who gives out of compulsion. The derivation seems to refer to someone with a lighthearted disposition. English has used the same idea and has intensified it to mean very funny.

Meaning or Meaningless

People might argue today that words can have whatever meaning we want for them. This might be true to some extent. However, there is usually something more going on with language. Words may evolve as we’ve seen above, but words don’t change the reality of what is being described.

Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. When they answered “five,” Lincoln told them that the answer was four. “The fact that you called the tail a leg does not make it a leg.” Lincoln astutely observed that calling something by a different name does not determine the nature of what it is. The legs and the tail of the dog have functions that transcend the words we attach to them. Were we to switch the words for leg and tail, we still have to define them by the nature and function of those parts of a dog’s anatomy.

Shared Meaning

Words must also share meaning, otherwise we fail to communicate. As Twain observed, specific words clarify the meaning intended. Next time you are speaking or writing, think about the words you use. If you are trying to communicate a serious topic, but your audience says, “That guy’s a real hoot,” then you know you’ve either done something wrong or you’ve misunderstood the nature of your audience. Assuming, of course, you know what a hoot is.

© 2023 Robert T. Weber and Words Done Right LLC

Wisdom is to eloquence as Robin is to Batman. By himself Batman was a crusader for justice, but with the boy wonder beside him, together they became the dynamic duo. Cicero was an early Roman orator who believed that eloquence was of great benefit to man but that wisdom must accompany it. Though we may discuss what wisdom he referred to, I will assert that there is a body of wisdom that has stood the test of time and can be discovered by people of integrity, truth, and traditional morality.

The early Greeks were famous for their writings on speaking skills, but many of their speakers didn’t always have the best intentions. Skill in rhetoric was often used to acquit the guilty in court; an eloquent argument often persuaded jurors to pervert justice. Wisdom tells us that perverting justice is never a good thing.

Verbal Violence

Today’s political landscape violates much of what can be considered wisdom and reason but rather is populated by what I consider verbal violence against opposing views. Reason is thrown under the bus for what is merely popular and acceptable by a few dominant, manipulative voices.

Words are heaped up to smear the opposition. Without addressing the opposition’s views, labels reveal how an author seeks to undermine an argument with smear words. For example, someone can call an argument a cesspool of hate and ignorance, or they can label it a sham and an empty shell. Such labels appeal to the already initiated, those who agree that opposing viewpoints have no reason to exist but haven’t any desire to hear the other side.

Name-calling and character assassination also provide eloquence without wisdom a ready tool for demonizing an opponent. A criminal who testifies against another to get a lighter sentence can be questioned about his character, but to assume the worst about someone else simply because you don’t like their argument only shows a person without a legitimate rebuttal. Do we really think such character assassination demonstrates wisdom?

Beauty Bullying

Another sneaky way of trying to falsely establish an argument is to present your side out of the mouth of an attractive person and find someone less attractive to be your opponent. Beauty can work wonders on an audience unwilling to deal directly with the facts of an argument. We think a position must be true based on appearances. Beautiful, handsome, and modern people think correctly; old-fashioned, not so attractive people don’t. Or so we are unwisely lead to believe.

Verbal attacks, name-calling, and using appearance to mask and argument wreak of manipulation and verbal bullying, ways of turning the argument in your favor without either reason or wisdom. Many speakers and writers participate in such manipulation but Cicero warns us against them by insisting the eloquence should not be divorced from wisdom. A find-sounding speech can be appealing but without wisdom, eloquence is merely a tool used to mislead.

© 2023 Robert T. Weber, Words Done Right LLC

I am all about good communication skills. For my regular posting schedule, I use a 5-week schedule by counting the number of Wednesdays in the month. May had five so this is number five, and I consider different topics for each of the five weeks. Here are my weekly topics.

Week One: Rhetoric

In this week’s post I bring up topics ranging from theories of rhetoric to logic to figures of speech. For example, we falsely assume because one person of a certain group behaves in a certain way, they all behave that way, not only an error in logic but a potential insult to others. I might also discuss figures of speech like the power of metaphors and the emphasis of parallel structure. We all use rhetoric in some way, and these topics help create a working knowledge of clear thinking and create more accurate communication.

Week Two: Words, Sentences, Syntax

Words have meaning. We need a common vocabulary not only to communicate our ideas but to avoid a tower of Babel (Bible: Genesis 11) society in which we fail to build communities because we have no unified way to talk. Though some perverse schools of thought believe that words are tools of oppression and power, considering our innate need to communicate and build communities words are appropriate devices. Words are not oppressive; they build connections with one another. We’ll talk about how we string words together in sentences to form complete thoughts, and we’ll clarify how best to construct them. Contrary to many English departments in higher education, we still need correct grammar to write effectively.

Week Three: Quotes, Speeches, Great Letters in History

There aren’t many better ways to understand great ideas and how to construct them than by reading masterful speeches and great letters from history. Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and former slave Frederick Douglas not only spoke words of great wisdom but also provided models of how to construct great speeches. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address is a masterful reflection on the Civil War. Martin Luther King, Jr. only spoke for about twenty-three minutes but gave us a memorable picture of his dream for equality based on character, the “I Have a Dream” speech. I’ll also throw in memorable quotes and ask you to give reasons why you agree or disagree. (Hint: logic discussed in week one may help.)

Week Four: The Ancients

It may come as a surprise that many of our significant ideas on public speaking were first delineated by ancient Greeks, Romans, and others. In this fourth week of posts we’ll look at various aspects of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian and others. Aristotle’s three pillars of public speaking—logos, ethos, and pathos—still provide a good foundation for persuasion. What sounds like an exercise in academic theory will surprise you. Some old ideas are still good.

Week Five: Miscellaneous

When there is a fifth Wednesday of the month, topics can range from book reviews to current events and even to requests for topics from my readers. It won’t be entirely a no-holds-barred approach, but I’ll try to provide some interesting tidbits of information not covered in previous posts.

Sign Up

I’ll do my best to make all weeks relevant and interesting not just academic and sterile exercises. I believe our ability to communicate clearly and to have good conversations has been stymied by the internet, texting, and insufficient education. Now with Chatbots on the rise, using our innate abilities is more important than ever. Writing and thinking clearly are still some of the most important skills we need in our personal as well as our professional life. Be prepared to give your brain a tune-up!

Sign up for regular posts at [email protected].

© 2023 Robert T. Weber and Words Done Right LLC

Rhetoric is not a word used in everyday speech, and some have suggested that with the advent of ChatGPT, composition and rhetoric may become lost arts. I think otherwise. Because we are created with an innate need to communicate and because, unlike the animal kingdom, we have developed language, rhetoric and writing will only be lost to the detriment of humanity.

Let’s think about rhetoric. Definitions vary. Webster’s calls it “the art of speaking or writing effectively,” and often refers to the rules developed by some ancient writers. Others simply call it verbal communication or discourse. Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, considered it more like the capacity in any subject to utilize the available means of persuasion.

Persuasion by Power

Historically the development of Aristotle’s rhetoric grew out of experiments with democracy and the need to convince fellow citizens. The ancient east up to that time relied on the power and wisdom of the king to enact, interpret, and enforce laws and political practices. Egyptian Pharaohs had the prestige of being a god and their word was considered as much. Kings of Israel may have had the Law of Moses, but they were still viewed as the arbiters of judgment on matters of that law. In places like Babylon and Persia, it was a dangerous thing even to approach the king much less question his judgment. No need to persuade, power rested in the hands of the monarch.

Seeing the vitriol, anger, and violence today exhibited by certain groups when their way is not adopted has elevated, or should we say degraded, persuasion by power to another level. It becomes persuasion by intimidation, or if the government gets in on the action, persuasion by the point of the sword. It is the tried-and-true method of thugs and totalitarian regimes, but I repeat myself. Parents will also recognize similar behavior in their two-year-olds: temper tantrums as a means of manipulation. Some parents give in, but adults of a more intelligent mindset should not concede to such tactics.

The Personality of the Speaker

Aristotle recognized the importance of the speaker’s ethics in order to promote his views. In other words, a speaker’s ethical behavior loaned credibility to his words. However, many people reject this for a cult of personality. Some people have a certain ability to influence others simply by the strength of their personality, what we might call charisma. Their power comes not from the content of their ideas but the power of their ability to project that charisma. Charisma often overshadows behavioral flaws, and we become awed (ensnared?) by such a person’s ability to influence others.

Anyone of integrity who is in a position to influence others will avoid persuasion by power and personality. Of course, integrity is the operative word. As we move through reflections on persuasion and rhetoric in future posts, we must consider the long-term effects of persuasion done right. We will always need words to communicate our ideas and will always need people who don’t rely on power or personality to persuade us. And don’t let Chatbots fool you. Only a human mind can develop the better aspects of persuasion and rhetoric.

© 2023 Robert Weber, Words Done Right LLC

Facts Are Stubborn Things

We live in an age when feelings trump facts. Said in another way: my personal truth trumps reality. John Adams, the second president of the United States, made a bolder claim. Ronald Reagan used to quote him, “Facts are stubborn things.” Adams quote gets more specific, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Some have suggested that Adams had quoted two French writers, but that is less significant than the reason he made the statement. Before the American Revolution, an incident occurred known as the Boston Massacre when British soldiers sought to put down a riot and some of the rioters were killed. Passions against the British were running high and eventually broke out into the Revolutionary War.

Beyond Emotion and Bias

Before the revolution took place, John Adams took on the task of defending the soldiers despite the fever pitch of emotion against the British. He demonstrated that they had acted appropriately according to the laws at that time, and he produced witnesses to bolster his case. Essentially, he brought the facts of what occurred to bear on the case. He won, or should we say the facts won?

Even today, depending on our own feelings, prejudices, and preferences we often prefer trying people in the court of public opinion. However strong our inclinations to see justice done or our side win, facts still matter, not simply our inclinations, feelings, and passions.

Only Informed Opinions

Good writing demands good thinking, and good thinking demands an examination of facts. Let’s not get sidetracked into thinking that often we can’t get to the facts of certain things. True in some cases, but we often say that out of laziness and uncontrolled passion for a particular point of view. Should we be accused of a crime or criticized for holding a contrary opinion, we hope that clearer heads will at least hear the ideas we bring to court or to an argument. Lazy arguments refuse to even consider something contrary.

As writers and speakers, we must always be in the business of presenting good evidence for our ideas: finding facts that support our assertions. Truth can be known, and facts can be ascertained. The cost of finding either is nothing less than our honesty and our concerted effort to admit the truth wherever we find it, even at the expense of cherished ideas.

If you’ve ever been in an argument that ended with name-calling or character assassination, then you have experienced the “ad hominem” attack, a particular fallacy used to end and allegedly win an argument. From my childhood, I knew people who, in jest, often finished a argument they couldn’t win by saying, “Yeah, well, you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.” However, everyone knew it was ridicule with a funny edge and was never intended to win the argument.

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary describes the tactic as “an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.” In other words when an assertion is made that an opponent can’t answer, the opponent defames and seeks to undermine the character of the one making the argument. The American Heritage Dictionary provides more insight by saying it is “a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.”

Godwin’s Law

In 1990 Mike Godwin proposed what has become known as Godwin’s Law. A Wikipedia search uncovered this definition: “as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler becomes more likely.” I once heard an English professor in class throw the Nazi epithet at a politician that he didn’t like (I never heard a reason for the label).

The tactic is still with us in various forms. Think of any name thrown at opponents ending in “-ophobe,” and you’ll see the ad hominem at work in full regalia. People use such emotionally charged labels when an argument ceases to have any reasonable content and often react with anger or mockery. Such an attack wreaks of defamation and intimidation but mostly reflect someone bereft of providing answers to an open discussion.

An ad hominem attacker thinks you are like the criminal who testifies only to get a lighter sentence and thus have an ulterior, self-seeking motive. Therefore, your testimony can’t be valid. His attacks are meant only to destroy credibility. Not only should you not take the insults to heart, but you must realize that such a person has probably been indoctrinated into an ideology that will allow no dissent, especially if the dissent makes more sense.

What To Do

Try this when any discussion reverts to Godwin’s Law or some form of the ad hominem fallacy. Ask “Beside what you think of me, what reasons do you have for disagreeing with the issue?” In other words, ignore the insult and bring the discussion back to the topic. It won’t work if such a person has no desire to answer legitimate objections, but it puts your name-caller on defense and exposes his shoddy thinking. You might even engage in a little sarcasm by doing what I heard someone do several years ago. When accused of being an “-ophobe,” he simply answered, “So what’s your point?”

Unfortunately, the ad hominem fallacy has become all too popular, especially in discussions of political and social topics. Do everything you can to stop it in its tracks.

Also try Bill O’Reily’s approach to ridicule: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Z12gBP5fU