Tag Archive for figaro speech

Resource: Jay Heinrichs’ Daily Figure

October 20, 2012 Argumentation, Blog, Resources, Rhetorical Devices No comments

If you liked this week’s interview with Jay Heinrichs and can’t wait until the next edition of Thank You for Arguing comes out, I suggest you visit his Daily Figure web site in which he serves up figures of speech from news events, pop culture and everyday conversation with the same wit and enthusiasm you heard during our discussion of rhetoric and the Presidential race.

Given the wealth of material being generated hourly by the candidates, Jay’s been focusing on the latest election-year turns of phrase over the last few weeks. But the site also includes language lessons learned from Monty Python, Homer Simpson and even George Bush, as well as general thoughts on how to write a college essay and how to teach your kids to argue (a mixed blessing, as I’m coming to find out).

As they used to say here in Boston: visit early and often.

And tune in to tomorrow’s Critical Voter podcast when, in addition to hearing about the fallacies of the campaign, you’ll also get the chance to hear an interview with Simon Critchley, moderator of New York Times philosophy column The Stone.

Critical Voter - Podcast 11 – Consistency and Interview with Jay Heinrichs

October 14, 2012 Argumentation, Blog, Podcast, Rhetorical Devices No comments

Book Cover - Thank You for Arguing

This week, Jay Heinrichs, author of Thank You for Arguing, joins us to talk about the rhetoric of the campaign, including a review of how each political party makes use of different rhetorical devices, and the rhetorical strengths and weaknesses of each Presidential candidate.

We also continue to use the first Presidential debate to illustrate various critical thinking subjects we’ve been discussing, including confirmation bias, managing expectations and media literacy.

A concept underlying most (if not all) of the critical thinking concepts covered at Critical Voter is the notion of consistency. As a species, humans seem to crave consistent behavior and, more importantly, are repelled by anything that seems to behave inconsistently. This is why the most powerful logical argument you can make is to prove your opponent has made a logical contradiction. It also explains why accusing an opponent of hypocrisy is such an effective way to put them on the defensive.

Understanding our need for consistency not only helps us better understand why we react to different rhetorical and argumentative techniques as we do, but can also provide people (including the Presidential candidate) guidance as to how they should behave in important situations (like the upcoming Presidential debates).

This week’s resources include:

Critical Voter - Consistency - Quiz

Critical Voter - Consistency - Lesson Plan

Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs

Jay Heinrichs’ Figures of Speech blog

Toulmin analysis of campaign material (mentioned at the start of the podcast) - Part 1 Part 2

Critical Voter – Podcast 11 – Consistency and Jay Heinrichs Interview [ 33:53 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download