WHAT'S THE POINT?

WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

As you know very well by now, persuasive speeches aim to convince an audience to take action or to take sides. (Or, as Jay Heinrichs would say, to get the audience to come to the consensus of your choice.)

Speakers often want to get their audience to do one of the following:

• Buy something.

• Donate something.

• Vote for something.

• Take a side on a controversial issue.

Heinrichs threw a whole bunch of examples of persuasive speeches at you in Thank You For Arguing. You're familiar with rhetorical strategies used for persuading an audience by now, too. So what else is there to talk about?

Fair question.

Our answer: It's also important to know which of three categories your persuasive speech falls under. Will you focus on questions of fact, values, or policy? Identifying this category can help you figure out how to structure your speech to best accomplish your persuasive goal.

Facts, Values, or Policy?

First, what do those three categories (fact, values, or policy) refer to, exactly? Glad you asked.

Questions of fact do not refer to black-and-white, objective facts like "the speed limit for this stretch of highway is 65 mph" or "the human heart has four hollow chambers." When we talk about questions of fact, we mean the kind of facts that allow for different interpretations based on different viewpoints. (Note that we're not talking about straight-up opinions, here.)

Examples always make things clearer, so here's one for you:

Let's say your public school district administered a new test to students this year. Everyone agrees on the facts: the district spent X dollars on implementation, and the average scores were Y, while average scores from the previous test were Z. Let's say that in this case, X, Y, and Z aren't in question. The question is whether X, Y, and Z suggest the district should stick with the new test or go back to the old one.

What does a speaker whose argument focuses on a question of fact have to do? Two things, at the very least:

• Support her view of the facts with strong evidence.

• Provide a clear, relevant interpretation of the evidence that the audience can easily understand.

Questions of values deal in opinion, not facts, and therefore often have to do with the relative worth or rightness of an issue. Because of this, questions of values frequently center on morals, aesthetics, or desirability.

For example, maybe you want to convince your audience that:

• The death penalty is morally wrong because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

• A sculpture proposed for the town square is an eyesore and should not be displayed.

• When choosing the location for a new homeless shelter, its proximity to public transportation should be given more weight than its overall capacity.

What does a speaker whose argument focuses on a question of values have to do? One key thing is that the speaker must provide an evaluation criteria so the audience understands how to judge the speaker's position and can easily determine whether or not they agree with it.

An evaluation criteria is a set of standards that guide the judgement of a proposal—sort of like a rubric. For example, say you're persuading your audience not to put up that ugly sculpture in a prominent downtown location. In your speech, you might lay out these standards in your evaluation criteria:

• Aesthetic value

• Appropriateness

• Relevance to the site

• Ease of maintenance

You could center your entire argument on the first one by saying, "The sculpture is ugly, and therefore has zero aesthetic value," and hope that convinces people. But a better tactic would be to go through each standard in the evaluation criteria and note how the sculpture fails to live up to any of them. Otherwise, your entire argument depends on whether or not your audience agrees if the thing is ugly. Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, it's probably not your best bet.

Questions of policy have to do with recommending a specific plan of action. Remember Jay Heinrichs' curmudgeonly rant about leaf blowers? That example falls into this category because ultimately he wanted to get his audience to vote for a noise ordinance—not just get them to agree that leaf blowers are annoying.

Speakers who want to persuade their audience in questions of policy must do all of the following:

• Identify a problem with the way things are.

• Convince the audience it's a problem that deserves a solution.

• Offer a specific course of action to solve the problem.

For example, say you're trying to persuade an audience that your state needs to raise its minimum wage. Following the above strategy, you might structure your argument like so:

• The problem with the way things are: 56% of minimum wage workers in the state live below the poverty line despite working full-time hours (or sometimes even more).

• Why does it deserve a solution? This affects everyone, because it makes life harder for the people who earn minimum wage and makes taxes higher for everyone because of reliance on government programs for those who live below the poverty line.

• Propose a specific course of action: Don't just say "we should raise the minimum wage." Do your research to settle on a specific dollar amount and be sure you have support for how that specific dollar amount would solve the problem.

Bottom line: If you've determined the primary purpose of your speech is to persuade, then ask yourself if you want to convince your audience to agree with your view of the facts, your values, or your policy recommendation. Then continue accordingly.

Sounds simple, right? If you're trying to convince your audience that husky puppies are adorable, then it probably is simple. Just show them a photo of a husky puppy or two, and they'll quickly come to your desired consensus.

But if you're trying to convince a group of people of…well, pretty much anything else, you'll have more work to do. (Source)