Response to Palestine/Israeli Discussion

Response to Palestine/Israeli Discussion
April 3rd, 2008
Liz O’Donnell

*As great as the presentation was, I didn't get the speaker's full name. Anyone have it?*

The Niemann Theater was swirling with rhetoric as (Dr. S) delivered his half hour presentation regarding the current state of education and youth in the Holy Land. His discussion was informative and powerful, and fueled by the numerous real-life experiences he was able to share with us about his time spent overseas. As for rhetoric and persuasion, there were various accounts. Some played on the audience’s pathos and some simply filled the room with a nervous tension.

The first observation I made was how he opened up with a joke. Through my public speaking courses and other areas of study, I’ve learned that this is an effective method of grabbing your audience’s attention. As long as the joke is well-mannered and pertains to the subject manner, it allows the audience to see a little of the speaker’s personality, and creates the “likeable” factor. (Dr. S’s) joke also made the point that we were allowed to ask questions throughout the presentation. It had a purpose and a persuasive effect; persuading us to listen and respect what he was about to say.

He utilizied a few other verbal techniques build his credibility as well. He humbled himself by crediting the people in the audience and their experiences. By stating that there were other people in the audience who were more knowledgeable then him, it made them feel good. In turn, it builds his credible character. In addition, he told a lot of stories to play on our pathos. Heinrich even says in his book, “…when you want to change someone’s mood, tell a story.” It’s pretty easy to do this when you are dealing with this particular topic. The stories of death and fear not only helped him prove his point, but they pulled on the audience’s heart. That triggers a whole range of reactions. The audience becomes intrigued, are called to action, or change their opinion regarding the matter. Personal story telling is a very effective rhetorical technique.

(Dr S) used a lot of open ended rhetorical questions to make a point. He used examples that played on deliberative rhetoric: questions that posed an idea about the future. In addition, he finished the question for his audience. By not giving them the change to either think or respond, perhaps he silently persuaded them to take his stance. A good example of this is when he posed the question, “When you think of the word ‘terrorism,’ what do you think of?” Instead of opening it up to discussion, he continued on with what he thought the meaning of terrorism was. This allowed him to take his position on the issue and allow others to follow him.

The other areas of rhetoric I want to speak of pertain to the time allowed for Carthage professor to respond. While I’m not sure I agree to or understand the context under which some of the professors responded, I did pick up on some rhetoric within their responses. For example, one professor choose to speak about his multitude of accomplishments. While I found this to be rather distracting and irrelevant, he did achieve at establishing his credibility. In my opinion, the situation regarding the student speaker was completely indecorous on the part of the professors involved. Although the student was responding at length, the professors and (Dr S) were there for the students. To cut him off in such a rude manner not only offended me and possibly the student involved, but showed a lack of decorum, ethical behavior, and values.

Overall, the presentation was informative, provocative, and contained useful information for the world that we presently live in. The ability for me to sit in on events such as these and distinguish rhetoric is another valuable learning tool as a communications major.