When Phil Davison said "use it not only as a tool, but as a weapon," he violated which guideline of proactive speech delivery as he did everything opposite to the guidelines of a proactive speech rules.
Because these are the rules apply to proactive speech, the speech should be meaningful and your voice should be expressive. Reduce the number of pauses while delivering the speech like ums, uhs, likes, and y'knows. Spell words out loudly. Don't murmur or mispronounce them.
Use the proper volume and pace when speaking. Consider the topic, location, and audience. To make your point clearer and keep the audience's attention, vary your voice's pace, intonation, and power. But what Phil Davison did was Despite possessing a master's in communication, things just get worse from there.
His voice starts to grow, but not in the positive way we talked about in class. Davison starts shouting at the top of his lungs one minute and twenty-five seconds into the speech. If frightening the audience by screaming at them qualifies as pathos, Davison is making the most of pathos. I was unable to discover how Davison used pathos in any other way. And he did everything against the guidelines of proactive speech.
To know more about speech:
brainly.com/question/3743745
#SPJ4
Answer:
the topic is what you are talking about and theme is the auctal story is about.
Answer:
It fails to support its claim with specific, credible evidence and uses a disrespectful tone.
Explanation:
When giving arguments in favor or against a specific subject, they must be supported by reason and logic as well as credible evidence that can be compared with reality. They also need to be coherent with the things you are stating, this has to be done in a respectful tone as you are open to the idea of others comments and counterarguments. You are supposed to show you are right with these arguments, not by insulting or despising others.
In my opinion, this excerpt fails in both. It is not respectful and it's arguments are not strong enough.
He states that there is not proof of who is right or wrong on the debate adressed, he needs to support this with evidence. Who states that?
He the concludes that "no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens." This seems as an opinion based on his own reasoning.
After this, he starts making judgments about the people supporting the restriction, calling them naïve. This is not polite or useful. As I said, this is not based on evidence, he is contradicting himself as he stated in the first lines that there was no evidence of who was rigth or wrong.
The next lines express just his opinions based on his values and thoughts, evidence to support them is never presented.
A combining form meaning "father," occurring originally in loanwords from Greek and Latin (patriarch; patrician), and used in the formation of new compounds.
