Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Love and Hate in Rhetoric Jaiden Shaiman-Krichiver 10/6/2025 …

- - - - The audience of this is people who want to learn more about ethics and persuasion tools in rhetoric.
      - His purpose is to talk about how rhetoric is a tool for building relationships rather than manipulating others.
      - His goal is to convince the audience to embrace rhetoric as a “persuasion from a heart of love”
      - His goal for his speech is to promote love in rhetoric and to inspire hope in people, and to get them to use rhetoric in their futures.
      - He achieves this by telling personal stories and using the tools of rhetoric to pursue the audience
      - He uses tools such as science, personal experiences, such as his father almost giving up his inventions to investors, and getting scammed because said investors were bad guys.
      - The social context of his claims is that rhetoric has a role in building relationships in society and building up communities full of love.
      - He uses pathos when talking about his father, and it makes you feel bad for his father and makes you dislike the people who did this to him
      - He uses False dichotomy when implying that rhetoric is either manipulative or loving, with no in between and no neutral thing.
      - I think his speech is effective because there are strong emotional appeals and there is a backup of science, which is credible, but it lacks real data or counterexamples in his speech.
      - He has bias because he has some religious beliefs in his speech and has specific examples of only what he is trying to argue, without any counterexamples.
      - This is reliable because it is a TED Talk, which is a very well-known channel on YouTube.
      - The counterargument is that rhetoric is just a neutral tool and is not inherently good or bad; it depends on the person using it and the context of the situation.
      - I agree with the fact that we need to include rhetoric for love in our lives, but I do disagree with the way he presents his speech in some ways.
      - Michael and Tappin would agree with each other on rhetoric and the ethical use of rhetoric.