How does one master oral rhetoric? For those who had studied the topic, which book was definitely the most life changing for you?
Assuming youre talking about the arguments themselves and not the charisma or personality of the speaker, a basic Systemic Logic textbook is a good place to start.
>>8469051
Classical rhetoric for the modern student
>>8469051
You'll have to talk to people :^(
>>8469051
unironically by shitposting on /lit/
>>8469061
Thanks.
>>8469059
It seems to me that most people don't give a shit about the logic behind the argument. All they care about is how it is presented.
On top of all that, all logic stands on basic assumptions, which can't be justified. How does one convince others to follow your assumptions using logic? By saying "Please believe me, it's an axiom of my deductive logical system?"?
>>8469059
Logic is only one of the 3 ways to convince people, the others being emotion and ethics (of the speaker)
>>8469092
I think the word you're looking for is ethos.
Protip: it doesn't translate directly to ethics.
>>8469245
Ethos is the legitimacy and reputation of the speaker afaik
>>8469051
I don't remember what books we used actually. But I had two really good teachers. The most valuable lessons thye taught me were how to deconstruct an argument, how to construct an argument, empathetic learning, use of imagery, and speaking without notes. I already had quite a bit of talent for debate, especially because I was a good writer.
One thing that stuck out to me was that my team most often won not because we had the better argument, but because we crafted a more empathy inducing and visually charged argument. That's where i came in. I wrote and read opening and closing statements and helped prepare rebuttals on the fly.
Narrative is key OP, as well as understanding both sides.
>>8469260
It's an appeal to the authority of the speaker. Not his ""ethics""
(Appeal to reason, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion - logos, ethos, pathos)
>>8469278
>legitimacy and reputation
>ethics
niga what
>>8469378
I wasn't entirely disagreeing with him or implying he conflated them. I just worded myself very poorly, so I see how you could think I did.