Will Malson A Persuasive Against Myself Page 1 of 3

A Persuasive Against Myself

What were you expecting before you heard your first persuasive speech? Something bold?
Fresh? Exciting? Maybe something common-sensical, like persuading you to not talk on your cell phone
or text while driving. According to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, in 2003 there were "In
2003 cell phone distraction resulted in 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries”[1]. Persuasive. Or, maybe
something government-related, like the second amendment: in these troubled times, we need to keep
ourselves and our families safe - the right to bear arms is a constitutional right; owning a gun ensures
your protection. Those opposed to guns have no right to take them away! These speeches would
typically have some sort of "call to action" if you will - maybe something as simple as to not talk on
your cell phone while driving - think of the potential lives you'll be saving. Or, call your congressman
today! Tell him that the second amendment guarantees our right to bear arms and no politician is going
to take that away! Effective. Persuasive. Yet, what all regular, or for purposes of further discussion in
this format, what all normal persuasive speeches lack is a paradox.

A paradox. You’re thinking that that’s rather arbitrary, or at least a little strange. But really, how
often do we even attempt to consider something apparently paradoxical, or even something slightly
mind-boggling without an answer key? How often do we intentionally take upon ourselves the onerous
occupation of explaining to ourselves or to our peers the mysterious fashions with which we daily lead
or lives, or of things that we’ve seen merely once in our lifetime?

Aside from Biblical aspects, we don’t, or at least, not very often. Maybe it’s because we just
don’t see them. Or, maybe it’s because as humans we have a tendency to shrug off things that we can’t
explain, or things that we don’t feel holds a high relevance to our intellectual undertaking or current
situation or circumstances.

But I digress.

What I hope to persuade you to do today is to consider very carefully a paradox. I take it upon
myself to persuade you to vote me last in the room.

I’ll let that sink in a second. You must think I’m crazy. Maybe I am. I’m told I am. But no
matter. My mission is to persuade you to vote me last in the room. Why? Take for example the political
situation of today. It seems that the majority of Americans are persuaded by presentation and not
content. In the same way, our Persuasive mindset has bred apathy in our suasion. Rather than weighing
content, again, as humans, we tend to relapse into what sounds best to us. Therefore, I will be showing
you the four key elements that we default to – what makes any given speech persuasive, why this
should, for the most part, not be so, and why I should be voted last.

Governors State University in Illinois published an article entitled "POLITICAL RHETORIC:

How to Analyze Cause Group Rhetoric"[2], which identifies and explains the four key factors to any
persuasive speech. It says: "The persuasion of any cause group can be usefully analyzed with this
predictable four-part pattern of the "Pep Talk": (1) the Threat; (2) the Bonding; (3) the Cause;
(4) the Response."

Let’s start with the Threat. Alerting the audience to an immanent or otherwise dangerous threat is crucial
Will Malson A Persuasive Against Myself Page 2 of 3

to persuasion for three reasons:

1. First, you need to find a way to initiate conversation with the audience. If I started my
speech with “I think you should consider a paradox, because that’s different”, would you care at
all? Probably not. The speaker needs to take the first step.
2. Second, danger is crucial because it informs the audience of a DISASTROUS
HUMONGEOUS PROBLEM THAT YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY IGNORE A SECOND
LONGER that you definitely need to take care of right away. If there was no problem with the
way things are, there really wouldn’t be a point in talking at all, would there?
3. Third, danger is necessary because it gives you credibility in the eyes of the audience.
What if I stood here and said, “Everything is okay!” Well, things aren’t perfect. We can always
improve, right? Why in the world would I want to say that everything is fine if I were trying to
persuade you to do something? I’m crazy, but I’m not that crazy.

The second plank of the Pep Talk is the Bonding. Bonding with the audience allows you to convey ideas
and attain sympathy for your cause. Bonding is essential in persuasion for two reasons:
1. First, you need to find a way to match and articulate your audience’s concerns. Just like
with the first plank of the Pep Talk, the Threat, you have to be able to carry on a conversation
with the audience in a manner that makes them like you; the worst possible thing you can do is
alienate your audience with an awkward phrase or something borderline offensive. This should
be avoided at all costs.
2. Second, Bonding is important when giving a conclusion. If you’ve successfully identified
a problem, and you’ve articulated a solution, you need acceptance. If everyone in the audience
rejects your solution, then where are you? Back to square 1. That’s bad. Bonding is key to
audience acceptance of your solution.

The third plank of the Pep Talk is the Cause. The Cause is the entire reason the speaker is
speaking. There aren’t reasons why this is important. It just is. If there is no cause, there is no speech. If
there is no speech, there is no speaker. If there is no speaker, …well, you get the idea.

The final plank of the Pep Talk is the Response. How are you going to deal with the problem that
you’ve presented, and how are you going to implement the solution that stems from your Cause? All
persuasive speeches have this. It’s like a simple math problem. If X is the problem, and your cause is to
get rid of X, you need to implement Y solution that equals Z, a better situation.

And now for something completely different. Those four planks? The reasons they’re crucial?
They’re all wrong. Or at least, they are all striving for the wrong thing.

Let’s start with the Threat. Most people assume that in order to talk about something, you need
to be addressing a problem. At the very least, if you’re trying to persuade someone to do something, you
need to persuade them to change their ways, right? Wrong. Why does a problem have to exist for there
to be change? Are we so content in our apathetic qualitative ways that we can only see the world as a
collection of problems and solutions? The world has problems, of course. But that doesn’t mean we
should view everything as dangerous complacency, or as something that is detrimental to society. In
truth, there are many things that are not “problems” per say, but are simply things we can work on and
improve. Debate is a prime example – we don’t debate to solve a problem, we debate to become better
communicators. There is no “Threat”, there is only improvement.
Will Malson A Persuasive Against Myself Page 3 of 3

The second plank is Bonding. But isn’t this important? Isn’t it a legitimate crucial aspect to persuasion?
Yes. And no.
1. It is a crucial element – if you are just trying to get people to agree with you. If all you’re
trying to do is get the outcome that you want by pandering to your audience, then Bonding is
essential. But that’s not what we should be striving for. People are not mindless automatons;
people are not sheep; people are not to be herded together in a single mass for the purpose of
purifying their thoughts and enlightening their minds. This is the worse of the two extremes.
2. The better extreme is to treat people as intelligent individuals, providing the entire scope
of information relevant to your topic and allowing them to decide for themselves. It is of course
important to read the audience and decide if there are any particular self-held opinions that you
may want to omit; you still don’t want to offend people. But you must present the facts. We hear
this on any TV show that takes place in court: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.

The third plank is the Cause. The Cause. What strikes you when you first hear that? To me, it
sounds like a movement that has a righteous justification; no human being can deny its legitimacy; it
must be truth; it must be upheld. How…straight-forward. Isn’t it? If you’re trying to convince someone
to change their ways, you of course have a Cause. But what if you’re not? What if all you’re trying to do
is to get someone to reconsider an issue, or begin to consider an aspect in their lives in which they could
improve? Our only Cause comes from the Bible. We do not have Causes besides this. Everything else is
simply an area in which we can improve.

Finally, the Response. The normal persuasive would have you think differently on a particular
issue, be it cell phone use and driving, or the right to bear arms. Remember what we talked about
before? People are intelligent individuals. People must decide for themselves. The typical speech will
tell you what you should do – the typical speech should suggest you to reconsider your opinion on any
particular issue, and provide support for their opinion.

Here’s what it all boils down to:

1. Reject things that are without substance,
2. Consider paradoxes more.
You could regard my speech as persuasive, meriting a high standing in the ranks. But my entire
speech is about how persuasive speeches are misleading, and that the “content over presentation” format
should be adopted. If my speech is persuasive, then you should vote me last because I was using the
very format of typical persuasive speeches that I told you was bad.

Remember the beginning? Consider the paradox. I’m not going to answer it. You are not
mindless automatons, you are people. You decide.
Will Malson A Persuasive Against Myself Page 4 of 3

Bibliography

[1] Innovations Report [a modern forum for science, industry and economy], "Hands-on or hands-free,
using a cell phone while driving is not safe", 01.02.2005, http://www.innovations-
report.com/html/reports/logistics/report-39637.html

[2] Governors State University, The Pep Talk, "Cause Group" Rhetoric, no date,
http://74.125.93.132/search?
q=cache:dhAuIHiPHR4J:webserve.govst.edu/pa/Political/pol_rhetor.htm+POLITICAL+RHETORIC:
+How+to+Analyze+Cause+Group+Rhetoric&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari