MASTER Your English Skills with Argument and Persuasion Techniques

Hello and welcome to another lesson. Today we are going to get into the introduction to argument and persuasion. There is a lot to unpack here today. So let's get into it. Some definitions for you. So you might look at these and think that most of them are synonyms or close to being synonyms, but that is definitely not the case. We use these terms very differently in English. So, let's get into defining them. An argument is the exchange of views that do not agree. This does not necessarily have to be heated or angry, but that's kind of the connotation it carries. If I come to you and I say that me and my husband had an argument, then you would think that it was going to be a negative thing, a bad thing. But an argument can also be a very structured debate type of thing. Maybe somebody can say well what is your argument to figure out what do you think and this again it carries more of a formal idea. If you say that I have written out a paper on my argument for globalization for example, then perhaps somebody would think of this as a more formal thing, an academic thing, but casually it means more like an argument or not really a fight, but an a heated exchange of words if you will. A debate. A debate is a formal discussion on a particular topic on opposing views particularly in public. Now this formal discussion has to be a very specific topic. It could be a range of topics all of which are tied to one united theme. Whether that's a presidential debate so that we can hear the different candidates perspectives on various items or whether it is over one sole heated debate over a particular item that is of the utmost importance to a region or an area whatever it is a debate is very very formal. Usually there is a moderator to keep things under control and that moderator must be neutral. A discussion. A discussion is the process of just talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas. You would see this in a business context quite a bit where you're going to sit around a table. You have an agenda. There is a goal to reach by the end of the discussion. There's not a lot of anger happening. There's no agendas to like change your ideas. There's no like feelings or anything like that being thrown in there. It is just a general discussion on the topic. This is different and more formal than a conversation. You can have a conversation with your friends very easily, casually, without a second thought. However, a discussion does require some thinking, but not as much as an argument or a debate would have. Persuasion. Persuasion is an attempt to convince someone to do or believe something. You can also say convince. Um, so to cause someone to believe in the truth of something would be the verb convince. Persuasion is the noun. So to persuade someone, you have evidence. You have a structured idea. You have a goal and you have a very clear agenda. Your agenda is to make them think the way you think or to convince them that something is true. You can persuade something somebody of something that is not true or that you yourself do not believe. The point of persuasion is to see if you can manipulate how that person feels about something. And this is done for fun all the time. Maybe you can think of a parent trying to persuade their kid. Maybe a dad is trying to persuade their kid that ice cream tastes like mud, for example. Um, that can be a really funny thing to behold and something that you pick on the kid for for years later. But you also have persuasion in terms of commercials and in terms of marketing. They're trying to persuade you to buy something. That is also persuasion. There are many, many devices and elements of persuasion that we are actually going to flesh out in another lesson. But for now, think of it as there is an agenda for that somebody has to tell you something. And that goal is to convince you of something. Whether it's true or not, or whether it's believable or not, they are trying to convince you of something. Coercion. Coercion is the ugly form of persuasion. This is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Coercion we see in a lot of movies. We see, well, if you don't do this, then your girlfriend's going to die, right? That's a very common thing. If you don't do what I tell you, if you don't rob a bank, then your kids are going to die or you'll never see your kids again or whatever it is. American action movies use coercion as a device all the time to make a character have no choice but to do something. And really, it's not that they have no choice. It's that that choice is so terrible to make that they would opt for the one that pleases whoever is doing the coercing. Coercion is a very um dangerous thing. Anybody who convert coerces you into anything is probably not looking out for your well-being. So definitely a huge difference between coercion, persuasion, discussion, debate, and argument. I want you later on to be able to identify all of these from one another. So we're going to get into defining these a little bit, and I'm going to give you an example of each one. An argument is at least two people expressing opposing views. Now, notice that this can be more people, but arguments tend to be more fruitful and more uh accurate when it's between two people sharing opposing views rather than three, four, five, six, however many. Because if you have many, many more people trying to express their opposing views, you're going to get a lot more emotion in there. You're going to get some anger in there. You're going to get a lot of miscommunication. And that's when arguments just fall apart. So it's a view or statement supported by personal examples and emotions. So this is one definition. Okay. One definition of argument is definitely something that you see in family a lot where they it's heated, angry, maybe the reasoning for somebody's thinking is really stupid because it's very emotional. Um we're going to see an example of that today. But it can also be an expression of one's personal views supported with examples and evidence like it's prethought. This is something that they've thought about. they've structured that they have researched that they have found answers for. It's structured and shares elements of debate and persuasion. So, we're going to get into the difference of sharing the elements of debate and persuasion as we go. The structure of an argument tends to be a blanket statement and then they have reason one. They have evidence for that. Whether it's personal evidence, emotional evidence, or experiential evidence, it doesn't matter. The fact is is that there's evidence. And then they might have another reason with evidence. And they keep going reason, evidence, reason, evidence, reason, evidence. Whether that evidence is good or not in that personal argument with a family member or friend, then eventually you'll reach a conclusion like, well, this is what it is and that's why I think so. Arguments can be very, how do you say, arguments can be very powerful. They can be very compelling, but they can also be very infuriating and ridiculous because of the emotional element that is possible within an argument. So for example, I want you to watch this episode of friends or not the whole episode but the scene from friends and look at the argument. Isolate what they are arguing about and how do they support their own arguments. Go for it. >> Dude, some guy just called for you. >> Who was it? >> I don't know. How about thanks for taking the message. Jesus. >> Hey, listen. You know when you move in, Rachel's room's going to be empty. You want to talk about what we want to do with it? >> Sure. >> Okay. I was thinking we should have a beautiful guest room, right? With um a mahogany sleigh bed and bedside tables with flowers on it all the time. And then we could have like a roll top desk with little comment cards so people can tell us how much they love staying here. >> Whatever. You know, I really haven't thought about it that much. >> Well, I like that idea, obviously. But I was thinking maybe maybe it could be a game room, you know? I mean, you can buy old arcade games like uh like Space Invaders and Asteroids for $200. The real ones, the big big big ones. >> No. >> Okay. So, you mean no as in G Chandler? What an interesting idea. Let's discuss it before we reject it completely. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Of course. >> Yes. Interesting idea. Um, talk about it, but no. >> So, that's it. Well, I just don't think that, you know, arcade games go in the beautiful guest room. The beautiful guest room is going to be filled with antiques, >> which is why Asteroids is perfect. It's the oldest game. >> What do you have against the beautiful guest room? >> Nothing. I don't have anything against the beautiful guest room, especially since everybody that we know lives about 30 seconds away. >> Are you mocking me? >> No, I'm not mocking you or your beautiful gig. >> I'm sorry about before. I don't need to have a game room. I mean, when I was a kid, I only played those games because I couldn't get girls. And now I can get. Now I have you. >> No, no, no. Not that I think that I have you or think of you as property in any sort of way. I see women. >> Stop it, Taylor. >> I'm sorry, too. >> Really? >> Yeah. Oh, yes. >> Listen, we don't have to make that a guest room. We can think of something to do with the room together. >> That's a great idea. We can easily think of a way for us both to enjoy the room. >> Totally. >> We don't have to come up with this now. >> Oh, good. >> Hey, you know what? Why don't we think about changes that we can make in the living room? >> Changes? >> Yeah. I mean, we're going to have to move around some furniture to make room for my chair. You going to bring the barker lounger over here? >> Is that a problem? Well, it's just that they're a set and they should probably stay together. >> Oh, that's cool. Then I'll just uh bring them both over. >> See, now now you're taking them away from their home. >> Okay, I get it. So, I get nothing. Nothing here is mine. Everything is yours. I'll get up in the morning, put on your clothes, and head off to work. >> Yeah. Yeah. You know what? Yeah, that's it. That's it. Everything will be mine. Nothing will be yours. That That's what I said. Oh, come on, Chandler. I'm talking about the bark and lounger. It just It doesn't match. Where is it going to go? >> In the game room. >> Look, it is not my fault that your chairs are incredibly ugly. >> All right, that's fine. That's fine. I won't bring over the chairs. I won't bring anything over. I wouldn't want to ruin the ambiance over here at grandma's place. >> So, yes, that was pretty humorous, right? Uh Monica and Chandler are arguing over something really ridiculous, which isn't the extra room in the house. Their friend Rachel is moving out. Chandler's moving in. and they're talking about how should we design the room? What should we do with it? Because we can't waste the space. So, what are they arguing over the guest room? Monica's position and how she supports it. Anukica says that she wants this this guest room. She wants it to be beautiful with antiques in there and fresh flowers all the time. And she wants she wants people to come over and experience that guest room and enjoy it and thank them for it. She wants to be recognized for being such a careful hostess. But Chandler is like, "Nobody lives close enough. Nobody lives close enough to make a guest room worth it. So I think that we should put a game room in. we should have these vintage video games from the Space Invaders and all of these things that I'm not sure if you're familiar with American vintage games or not, but he wants a game room like an arcade. And he wants to do that so he can entertain his friends so he himself can go in there and since people that they know live nearby, they would probably enjoy that more than a guest room that they would never stay in. But Monica doesn't even want to hear it. She's just like, "You know what? No. And that kind of stubbornness is what sets off the argument to be more and more and more ridiculous, right? There's a lot of emotion happening. There's a lot of just silliness happen. The way that they are arguing is just silly, right? But very entertaining for American TV debate. This is a very formal discussion of opposing views on one topic. Each person is able to share their position and rebuttal with the other. We say rebuttal. R E B U T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T A L. Rebuttals are when somebody says something, the opposing viewpoint person says something, we would say opponent. So when that opponent says something, you can give a rebuttal. You can say, "Well, that's not how it is because what about this evidence, this evidence, and this evidence?" Then the moderator will turn to the opponent and say, "What do you have to say in response?" And then they go back and forth. It's a very very structured way to debate to have an argument essentially. However, you have a neutral moderator. There is somebody who's controlling it most of the time. The use of primary sources, proper evidence, and citations recognized by everyone are required or you will lose credibility. If you stand up in there and say that I think dogs are better than cats because I just think so and because in my experience that is better. Well, that is not a primary source. There is no proper evidence and you would probably have to step down from the debate because you have no credibility to make a claim like that. However, if you have years and years and years of work in the American Humane Society, for example, or you are a scientist who works between dogs and cats and studies their brains or their psych their psychology, physiology, whatever, then maybe you have the credibility to make a claim like that. But it would be a stretch and you would immediately have a lot of enemies in the audience, right? All of your cat people would be very frustrated with such a statement. So you would have to be very very careful with how you approach that and be able to give uh evidence that nobody can deny. Okay. So these can get heated and messy but the speakers lose credibility when they reduce a debate to a squabble. So if that debate just gets worse and worse and worse then it becomes a squabble. Something that a squabble is a very unprofessional thing to do. It is like an argument, but it's petty. Petty means so unimportant. Things that don't matter. That's just being squabbled about and it's out of control. It's emotional. It's just very out of place with how the speakers are acting. This happened with the American presidential debates uh not very long ago. It feels like it was seems like such an embarrassment to America because that's what happened. Nobody was obeying the rules. The candidates were not obeying the rules. They were talking over one another. They were being very ugly with one another in so many ways, making personal attacks that was a disgrace to the American people. And none of us could believe that's what we were watching. It was pretty ridiculous. So that is a great example of a public event where it just degenerated into a squabble and both both candidates lost a lot of face for that. Now I do want to say that a debate is meant for an audience. It is intended to be watched in the public eye and because of that it is very structured. Because of that there is a neutral moderator. An argument is not designed to be watched. Even on TV and stuff, they try to make it more and more natural. Of course, they expect an audience with TV as in friends. However, a debate is intended through and through from the very beginning to be watched. All right. So, watch this debate over super team comments. If you're the Los Angeles Lakers and you draft or you have Norm Nixon and then all of a sudden you draft Byron Scott and he ends up as a part of your team. If you have Bird and and and you know and Parish and you know you get Mail or whatever the case may be. Clearly this is a situation where I'm talking about a team building and assembling a roster full of talent as opposed to players coming together as one. You can't knock them, particularly in this day and age, for looking at their business interest because the more successful you are, the more money you make, the less dependent you are on people down the road, which is a beautiful, beautiful thing. And I understand that. But what we're talking about is and, and let's face it, we're not talking about LeBron as much as Durant in this situation. And I've tried to explain this to a lot of people that try to make that argument comparing the two. When LeBron went to Miami, Miami had gotten bounced out in the first round the year before. And LeBron Dw Way Wade and Bosch had never played together. The issue with Durant is that not only was he a superstar, not only did he had had he just lost in the conference finals to the same team a month earlier, but everyone was there but him. Had none of them played together and they assembled, that's entirely different than you joining an already welloiled machine. Well, it's a lot different in the collegiate game because agree it's one shot, one kill in the NCA tournament. In the NBA, the best team usually wins because it's a seven game series. And it's not super teams. See, it's not allstar teams that people are mad about because nobody's mad that Paul George plays with Russell Westbrook. It's super teams. That means when an in MVP level player decides that, oh, I'm going to go play in Miami. Oh, I'm going to go play in Golden State. And that's always transpired in the NBA. It's just you talked about when you get drafted, i.e. when the team does it versus when I choose as a free agent when I do it. >> But that's not all I talked about. You're right. But that's not all I talked about. I also talked about that superstar joining a welloiled machine. If the Golden State Warriors, if Steph and Clay and Draymond weren't together and they all decided to go together and join Kevin Durant, as much as you might not like that, you can still wait and take a wait and see approach. But when you're 73 and N and when an argument is being made, like >> that's one example, but that's >> KD is a the an isolated example because the Warriors are the only team in the history of the NBA to have two allars both under 30. >> Well, that's fair. Well, that has never happened. >> No, no, no. The reason why it's relevant is because, you know, all it takes is one to really turn folks off. If you're looking at the National Basketball Association at that particular moment in time, think about what time and recent memory where we sat back and said, "This is a damn waste of time. Ain't no reason to even watch. We haven't done that." >> Let me go back to my point. >> Sure. >> Nobody's mad at Kyrie for being on Boston. You know why? The team traded him, i.e. the organization like you keep alluding to, and he's not an MVP candidate. >> That's not the reason. >> But the Boston Celtics horrific basketball hold. That's a horrible example. >> Okay. So, what are the opposing positions? How do you know this is a debate and how does it begin to devolve into an argument? We're seeing a little bit of so the opposing positions they tend they both speakers have a different position obviously and it's at odds with one another. One of them says super teams like having lots of star players on one team is a really bad idea and should not happen. Whereas another one says that super teams already happen. So what's the point of saying they shouldn't? And would that not be more entertaining? Do you think that there's no such thing as a super team being able to compete with other super teams? Like all of these things, there's a lot of there's a lot of elements that they're bringing up in here, but these are the main points. How do you know this is a debate? Each person has evidence from cited sources and they take turns. They are using critical sources and then it's when it starts to devolve into an argument, they start to use more their own interpretation of things as they see it. And that's when it starts to get really heated and really aggressive. They start to interrupt each other and speak over one another. Just kind of being ugly and somewhat entertaining is the idea, I think. But definitely this was an odd one. It was intended to be a debate, but because they didn't have a moderator, then it devolved into an argument fairly quickly. Discussion. Participants of a discussion simply present their views in the logical flow of a conversation that is centered on one topic. There is maybe a planned topic, maybe the questions are planned, but after that nothing nothing is planned. Now, you can also have something where you walk in and have a discussion that is not planned. For example, if a kid acts up at school and needs to go to the principal's office, he is going to have a discussion with the principal because that discussion is all about why did you do this? I need to understand why you were disobedient to your teacher, but then what should we do with you? How will you be disciplined or will you just be warned this time? The notice that there's one point. One point is understanding where the kid came from and what to do with him about it. That would be a discussion. There is an agenda, a very clear agenda. Everything about that conversation moves toward that goal. You don't bring a kid who's been disobedient with his teacher into the principal's office and talk about rabbits. Okay? That's just not how it's going to happen. So, definitely uh pay attention to when something is a discussion rather than an argument. The purpose is to learn from one another. There are things that you need to know from one another. There are things you need to understand in order to reach the joint decision. There's no agenda to persuade or show off. This is not intended to have an audience necessarily. It can and there are many talk TV shows in America that do like the view or the round table. any of those are. Yes, you can have discussion within its slight agenda and the whole goal being to persuade or show off. However, that is not the point. The point is to just discuss the topic and to explore one another's perspectives on that topic. There is no trying to convince one another of the truth of something. There is no coercion. Definitely, there is no argument. An argument can spring from a discussion, but that is not the point. That is not the intent and nobody's really pushing for that. This is mo much more casual. It is very very very focused. That is the main thing you need to really understand from a discussion. It is very focused on that topic. So go ahead and watch this roundt discussion of Steve Jobs. And keep in mind that this was designed to be watched, but you can also tell by the people and their responses that they are coming up with these responses on the spot. So, go ahead and watch and then we'll get back. Please, you have to tell me why it's so important for it to say hello. >> Hollywood, they made computer scary things. See how this reminds you of a friendly face? That the disc slot is a goofy grin. It's warm and it's playful and it needs to say hello. It needs to say hello because it can. Steve's had this skill to create these things that weren't just useful. They weren't just successful as commodities. People have relationships with them. He talks in the first act about, you know, can't you see how it has a friendly face with a goofy grin and it worked. People love their devices. They love the experience of opening up the box. You know, I really never viewed him as a creative entity before working on the movie. And that to me was actually probably the biggest revelation was that he really was an artist in a lot of ways. The fact that he was able to put his own personality and his own shortcomings and wonderful attributes into this technology. In the same way a writer or an actor is able to funnel themselves into their work, he was able to do that with products. It was a true marriage of function and art. >> A creative genius, one a pioneer, one of the great figures in certainly American maybe world history. Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Steve Jobs. He's in that sentence. He was constantly in love with that next idea and that next thing and the people that he dragged with him, but nothing was going to interfere with getting to that next thing. That's pretty powerful stuff. There are many people like that. >> He's shaped the way that we live today. And you know none of that none of that was by chance. I mean he was an extraordinarily brilliant man. >> I think it's really important that these huge figures are answerable. You know it's not comfortable making films about them especially lots of people are still alive about them and and you know it's a very challenging portrait. It's uncompromising both the performance and the depiction of him. The writing it shows many many sides of him which is wonderful. >> He did actually say to people you know who are you? Tell me about yourself. What do you do? What is it? Okay show me. Let's see. He wanted the best out of people. I have real appreciation for that side of him. As dogged as it might have been and as difficult as it might have been for some people to work with that level of scrutiny, he wanted the best out of people for sure. Okay. So, what are the elements of discussion you see in this clip? And did anyone come to the discussion with an obvious agenda? Did you see anybody in there trying to convince one another of anything? And how is this different from a debate? There's a lot to answer right here. So, elements of discussion that you see in this clip, each person has an opinion. Notice that they would not be sitting at that table if they did not have an opinion on Steve Jobs. They are supposed to share this casually with everyone else on the same topic. You see coffee mugs. If you see people not sitting up straight, being super proper, instead they're much more relaxed. Yes, they're on TV and they know that. Yes, they are still communicating, making eye contact and stuff. Whereas in real life, somebody might look down at their phone or they might be distracted by looking at the window, whatever. You don't have that. But you do have a lot of casual conversation. And it does not seem they have prepared their remarks beforehand. Maybe they were informed that they will be speaking about Steve Jobs and should share what they think about him as they've been working on this movie about Steve Jobs, but you don't have this whole very structured argument with evidence to support and all of these. You don't have that. So, did anyone come to the discussion with an agenda? Does not seem to be the case. It definitely seems that they were informed that they would be talking about this topic of Steve Jobs and they should share an opinion, but it does not seem like they are not listening to the other in order to think of their own thing to say. That doesn't seem to be the case at all here. Number three, how is this different from a debate? There is no audience to convince. Like there's no audience in the room that's intended. These are probably just cameras and the people sitting around the table. There's no quoting of cited sources. There's no moderator to control the discussion and there is no structured arguments. There is no statement, evidence, reasoning, statement, evidence, reasoning. There's none of that. So definitely a great example of a filmed discussion in a semiformal matter. Persuasion. This is an argument purposefully designed to convince someone to believe or do something. The easiest thing I can tell you about persuasion that you you yourself may do one day, have done re in the past, or are doing currently is to convince a child to persuade a three-year-old child to eat his dinner. That is a great example of persuasion. Maybe a parent might say, "But we have cake for dessert, so if you finish, you can have some cake." Or, "Hey, we have this." or we have a long day ahead or you're going to go down to sleep and you're going to be hungry and tired if you don't eat some food and you need some energy. Whatever it is, this is persuasion. Parents do it all the time. Commercials, politicians, marketers, teachers also have an agenda to persuade the their audience to believe something or do something. Whether that's to buy something, whether it's to be obedient, whether it is to vote for them, whatever it is, when someone is persuading you, they want you to do or believe something for them. The structure tends to be uh statement, evidence, reasoning. They explain the evidence and why and then they make a connection. What is the importance of that evidence and reasoning? How does it support that main statement? They're doing this all the time. When someone is trying to convince you of something or to persuade you of something, they are constantly giving you evidence from a range of things. Maybe there's a motive evidence. Maybe there's something that they noticed about you the other day that they want to bring up because it's going to strengthen their case to get you to do or believe something. This is very interesting. We're going to break down persuasion and persuasive devices and being able to con uh to comprehend them in a story or in a video. We're going to break that down in a future lesson, but definitely understand where these are coming from. All right, I want you to watch the right to choose. This is one that's very short, but catch it. Notice what's going on here and catch it and notice what's different about this than a debate. Tony, if someone dies on your watch, you don't give up. >> Who's ever giving up? >> We are for not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame. >> Sorry, Steve. That that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations we're talking about. It's not the World Security Council. It's not Shield. It's not Hydro. >> No, but it's run by people with agendas and agendas change. >> That's good. That's why I'm here. When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down. Stop manufacturing. Tony, you chose to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us? We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own. If we don't do this now, it's going to be done to us later. >> Who is trying to convince who? If you need to go back and watch it again, what are the two sides of the argument? And does either side seem convinced? Captain America is trying to convince the others that they have rights. The others are trying to sway Captain America's traditional position. Notice that the two sides of the argument are as as follows. Captain America says it is fundamentally not right for a government body to control them as a private group. He thinks it will lead to misuse of the Avengers. If they submit to the to the accords, the Skovia Accords, then they could be controlled by someone else. And if that organization gets um gets corrupted, as they've already seen prior movies, then they would be controlled by an evil group or that group is going to use it against other countries in order to persuade them or coers them into doing whatever that governing body wants them to do. He doesn't want the Avengers controlled. Iron Man and others are trying to convince Captain America that they have no choice but to allow the UN to control them because it will happen anyway. Because everything that they've done to this point is so destructive. Though they are trying to defend from aliens and keep people safe, they end up hurting a lot of people and destroying a lot of infrastructure in doing so because the job is hard. Does either side seem convinced at the end of this? Does not seem to be the case. Neither side seems to be convinced by the other's argument. Coercion. This is persuading someone to do something by force or threat. If you don't do this, I will do this thing to you not want me to do. Right? So maybe if if you don't do your homework, you will fail my class. Right? That is a very common thing a common thing of co coercion built into our school systems. If you do not complete the work then you will not get the reward of graduating and move on. Now coercion can take a lot of forms. It could be much more simple and easy like built into an educational system as in as is the case with taking standardized tests and if you don't study for the test you will fail the test and if you fail the test then you will not go on to higher education and if you don't go on to higher education it's going to be more difficult to get a job. There's there's a lot of coercion built into society. There are other types of coercion where maybe somebody who is a bad person will take somebody that you love or are close to. This is a very common uh action movie trope, but they'll take them and offer to hurt them if you don't obey them and what they want. Coercion can take a lot of forms and usually can get on the very dark side very quickly. However, you do need to recognize that there is there are elements of coercion throughout society as well. It doesn't always have to be a dark evil thing. It can also be somewhat of a good thing. We still in a negative context, but you know what I mean a little bit. I think coercion is the dark side of persuasion. It leaves a person with no choice. And I put that in quotation marks because really they could still choose the other way. They could still choose to not do the thing, but it will come at a great cost. Whether it's going to come at the cost of a loved one or the cost of actual finances or the cost of an opportunity, whatever it is, it's going to cost them something to not choose to do what's being asked. There's this this thing called blackmail. This is a very common example of coercion. Blackmail is when you have dirt on the other. And so if you want to force them to forcefully persuade them to do something for you, you could say, "Well, if you don't do that for me, then I will show the world this this evil thing that you did, whatever it is." And then they would have no choice but to do it. The deal is if they do it, you give them the evidence and they get to keep their their reputation intact. Let's see an example of this. Listen, I don't know what you're doing skulking around during daylight hours, but I don't want any trouble in here. So, hit the road. >> I'm not looking for any trouble either, sir. I simply want to buy a jumbo pop for my little boy. You want the red or the blue, pal? >> I'm such a >> Oh, come on, kid. Back up. Listen, buddy. What? There aren't any Fox ice cream joints in your part of town? >> Uh, no. No, there are. There are. It's just my boy, this goofy little stinker. He loves all things elephant, wants to be one when he grows up. Is that adorable? Who the heck am I to crush his little dreams? Huh? Right. >> Look, you probably can't read, Fox, but the sign says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, so beat it." >> You're holding up the line. >> Hello. Excuse me. >> Hey, you're going to have to wait your turn like everyone else, meter maid. >> Actually, I'm an officer. Just had a quick question. Are your customers aware they're getting snot and mucus with their cookies and cream? >> What are you talking about? >> Well, I don't want to cause you any trouble, but I believe scooping ice cream with an unglloved trunk is a class 3 health code violation, which is kind of a big deal. Of course, I could let you off with a warning if you were to glove those trunks and, I don't know, finish selling this nice dad and his son a what was it? A jumbo pop, please. >> A jumbo pop. >> $15. >> Thank you so much. Thank you. >> So, yes, we have the popsicle clip here. What does the fox want? How does the rabbit coers the business owner? And what do you think happens next? Okay, so the fox wants to buy a jumbo popsicle, an elephant-sized popsicle for his little elephantl looking son. Later on the movie, we see that this is not the case. But at this point in the movie, that's what we're supposed to think. How does the rabbit coerc the business owner? She points out that the employee in the back is not wearing a glove on his trunk when he scoops the ice cream. So, the customers are getting snot and mucus in their ice cream, which is really, really gross if you think about it. But she says, "Hey, you have transgressed a health safety standard. So, if you if you you know, I might let you off of a warning instead if you simply give a popsicle to this fox, like sell it to the fox." And so notice her idea here is not, you know, I'm going to hold this over you forever. I'm going to keep coming back and demanding things from you. No, the goal is to get the immediate return. And then she simply issues a warning so that the business stays open. If it is assumed, even though it is not directly said, you can comprehend and assume that if the elephant business owner refuses, then she will write them up at the police station and get them into lots of trouble, which will honestly probably result in being shut down, shutting down the elephant dessert business. So, very important thing to see here, though. She looks so bright and happy and cute and stuff. She's actually blackmailing the business owner. She's saying, "I'll give you a warning instead if you sell them this popsicle." So, what do you think happens next? The fox is definitely up to something. Not being as nice as you would think. So, the fox cannot pay because honestly, he takes these, he steals, and he does a hustle. All of those things. You can watch Zootopia. It is a fun movie. But that's the idea is the rabbit pays for him. So honestly, the fox gets out with someone else doing all the work of coercing the elephant into doing that and then he doesn't even pay. So very interesting, very typical of a fox. So what are the differences between argument, debate, and persuasion? An argument can be casual, typically is. It's a point that may be created and defended on the fly. Whereas a debate is very formal, very structured argument that is thought of beforehand. You have evidence to support it. That is solid evidence. Whereas persuasion, it can be casual. It can be debat-like. It can be I mean it could it could have an audience or maybe it doesn't have an audience. It could be spoken or written. Persuasion can. A debate tends to be spoken and an argument tends to be spoken. So that's a huge difference between argument and debate and persuasion. Uh an argument is supported mainly by emotions or personal experiences. Not very formally done. Whereas a debate you have to have great solid evidence that everybody recognizes as trustworthy. And if it is not considered trustworthy to be a source by the audience, you've got to make a case for why it is worth using and citing in the argument. That is a very important thing to notice and to note with debates. You cannot lose credibility. A persuasion has lots of evidence and conclusions all of which draw from different things. Maybe there are some real sources. Maybe there are some elements in life and life experiences. Or hey, you don't want that to happen again, do you? Or you know, it could be as formal or as casual as you'd like. Persuasion is a device used all over an argument. The sources do not really have to be cited and it could be public or private, but it is often spoken. You can write an argument, but it tends to be spoken and in or intended to be spoken anyway. A debate has a moderator whereas an argument does not and persuasion does not and it tends to be public for that reason. It is a formal event designed for the public eye. Persuasion has an appeal to feelings, to logic, and credibility to build a case. So, we're going to get into persuasion in a later um lesson. We're going to get into bait in a letter lesson. So, don't worry. We're going to break these down very well because honestly, you comprehend all three of these differently. So, why is it important to identify types of persuasion? If you don't identify the situation, you won't know what is being asked of you. If if you read something that's meant to be persuasive, but you interpret it as an argument that you are not supposed to act for, then you've gravely misunderstood the intent of the speaker and could cause yourself some issues. Does the speaker want you to believe something, buy something, or do something? This takes comprehension. You've got to identify if they're just arguing that one thing is better than another, or are they trying to persuade you? You won't pick up on logical fallacies. If you're just reading this as if it's a fiction novel, you're not going to pick up on logical inconsistencies. Therefore, you would be easier to fool. You don't want to be easy to fool. But that means working on your comprehension to understand to identify what is being said, how it is being said, what is the structure of it, and what is the author's intent. You need to know all of those things. You've got to know whether the evidence is logical or not. If it's not logical, then you have a logical fallacy and you could be honestly duped into doing anything. You won't be able to break down the text to the most important points. Guys, this is key. As I've as I've said throughout this course, it is key to be able to break something down into various elements. If you don't do this, it is so much more difficult to comprehend. Now, as you practice this, you are going to get better and better at it and therefore faster and faster at it. However, you've got to be patient and do the work now. You've got to be able to understand now and practice now. You've got to be able to practice breaking something down into its elements in order to properly comprehend it. So, what is the author asking? What is the obvious point or the explicit uh meaning? How do they support their statement or is it supported or are those sources even credible and why is the author saying or writing this or the implicit meaning? So why what is their intent? What are they trying to do? Are they trying to make you do something? Are they trying to convince you to do something? Are they trying to make you buy something or believe something? Or are they trying to entertain an audience? Maybe their goal is to make you look dumb. Maybe their goal is to make you look very very smart. What is the goal? What is what are they thinking as they do this? And why why did they structure it the way that they did? All of these are really important in order to comprehend correctly. You cannot comprehend persuasion the same way you would comprehend an argument because the evidence is not equal. the whether it's done in front of an audience like as in a debate versus an argument in private that should be comprehended differently because in a debate maybe they're trying to show off. Maybe they're trying to convince the audience and show the audience that their idea is better than your idea. And if that's the case, you need to show up ready to go. You need to show up being ready to create your own argument. So in the next lesson, we're going to talk about debate. We're going to break it down, okay? Because all of these items are related and share some elements. So, you notice that today, right? We looked at five types of persuasive, argumentative, debat-like items. We we went through five of them. They're very, very similar, but they are not synonyms. Make sure you understand that those five items are not synonyms. Argument, debate, persuasion, coercion, all of these are not synonyms. Pay attention to whether someone is trying to convince you, present an opinion, or tear down another's point. Because if you misunderstand somebody, if you misinterpret their meaning, and maybe they say, "Hey, I really like this coffee shop down the street. Do you want to go to the coffee shop?" Okay, honestly, we can understand that. But if you just jump on them and just be like, "You know what? That's not the best coffee out there. What about this other place that we've been going to for years?" Whoa, whoa, whoa. They were just presenting an opinion, not trying to convince you. Right? So, that's an important thing. You don't want to make a fool of yourself or damage a relationship by misinterpreting what they mean, right? That's a huge point in any kind of language learning, honestly. So, next we're going to talk about debate. We're going to break down the elements of persuasion in coming lessons, and we're going to continue with this idea of comprehending non-fiction. So I will see you in the next