Lesson video

Hello everyone.

My name's Ms. Keller and welcome to today's lesson.

In this session, we are going to be exploring how to plan an effective speech, and in particular, focusing on how we can use counter-arguments in order to really persuade our audience.

So by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to structure a speech around a central message and use a counter-argument to strengthen this overarching argument.

So let's explore today's keywords.

We have authorial voice, rhetorical question, refute, hyperbole, and direct address.

So do pause the video here for a moment and make sure that you are really familiar with all of these terms, especially those three rhetorical devices.

So we've got that rhetorical question, hyperbole, and direct address, which I'm sure many people will be familiar with, but do make sure that you remember how to use them because we are going to be using them today.

And I'd just like to draw your attention to that word there at the top, authorial voice.

So that is the language that a writer uses to communicate their perspective.

So it could be serious, hopeful or fun.

But the thing that's really important to remember about the authorial voice is that this is where you convey aspects of your personality perhaps, or your character or the persona that you are assuming for the purpose of this speech.

So you might not be a really serious person all of the time, however, the subject of your speech means that you will require a serious authorial voice.

So when it comes to authorial voice, it's really about finding that balance between being able to convey a sense of character, making yourself seem like a relatable speaker, but also matching that voice to suit the subject of your speech.

Take some time to review the rest of those definitions and when you're ready to continue, click play.

So how is today's lesson going to look? Well, we are going to begin by forming an initial response to our statement.

So that's where we're going to come up with that overarching argument for our speech.

And then when we've done that, we are going to have a look at how to build and refute a counter-argument in order to strengthen that overarching argument.

Okay, so let's get started.

So in today's lesson we are going to craft a speech with a focus on authorial voice.

So that's that key word we were discussing there at the beginning.

So this is the style, the tone, the delivery, the vocabulary, lots of different things make up authorial voice.

So here's our task.

Write a speech to deliver to people in your local community responding to the following statement: "Music festivals are a blight on rural communities and should be banned with immediate effect.

They're disruptive and cause damage to the natural environment." So over to you for a quick discussion then.

Just taking a look at this key information about our task, what particular pieces of information will help us to write our non-fiction piece? So what do we need to know in order to get a really clear understanding of how best to approach that task? So pause the video here while you take some time to really get to grips with that task.

And when you're ready for us to continue and feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Welcome back.

So, we had lots of useful information here in the task, so well done if you managed to pick up on any of these key pieces of information.

So first of all, we've got the type or the form of non-fiction text that we need to write.

We are writing a speech, we know that straight away.

So already that's indicating to us a lot about how perhaps we need to structure this non-fiction text and how we need to think about expressing our key ideas.

Then we've also got an indication of our audience, so that's who we're trying to engage with this speech and they are people in your local community.

So again, that's given us lots of clues about how we might craft our authorial voice because we are going to need to seem relatable to people in your local community.

So these might be people of all different ages, they might be people of all different backgrounds, but the thing that they have in common is that they all live in the same place.

So then down onto that statement then, so we've got an idea of the original stance of the statement.

So that is that music festivals are a blight, they should be banned, they're disruptive and they cause damage.

So here, this original stance is actually attacking music festivals.

It is against music festivals and it is for banning them.

So when we think about our overarching argument for our speech, we need to think, are we going to attack them too? So are we going to agree with this statement and say, yes, music festivals are a blight and I think they should be banned and here's why.

Or are we going to defend them and say, actually, I think music festivals are a really good thing for rural communities and here's why.

So that's really important to think about.

Remember we do try to avoid sitting on the fence, we want to go one way or the other because it helps us to build a much stronger argument.

So a well-structured speech will answer the following questions: What is your initial response to the statement which we just been discussing and why do you think this? So once we've got that overarching argument, that's when we expand onto the different reasons, evidence, examples for why we think that.

So let's start by focusing on this first question then.

So have a look at this statement.

I'd like you to think about what your initial response is.

So are you going to attack it as well, or are you going to defend it? And you've got a little spectrum there from strongly disagree all the way through to strongly agree.

So I'd like you to take a moment to think really carefully about your response to this statement.

But I do have a challenge for you.

Instead of saying agree or disagree, strongly disagree, strongly agree it's actually far more effective to use descriptive or emotive words to subtly convey your opinion.

Instead of saying strongly agree or strongly disagree, we might want to say it's outrageous or abhorrent, disgraceful, necessary, vital, exciting.

As you see these words help to really convey those emotions and they're far stronger than disagree or agree.

So do consider trying to think about how you might use those when you come up with your initial response.

So pause the video here while you take some time to think and share responses with the people around you because it's likely you might not all agree or make some notes.

And when you're ready for us feedback together, click play.

Welcome back.

As I've predicted, not all of you agreed, but it was really fantastic for me to hear you all debating, I'm really having to justify your opinions and I heard lots of fantastic descriptive and motive words as well.

So well done if you were also using those when you formed your initial response.

So here's how some of our Oak pupils responded to the statement.

So Jacob said, "Music festivals are an exciting opportunity for any local community to become a cultural centre for music and performing arts." So here Jacob is using that emotive word, it's an exciting opportunity.

So we know that he's actually disagreeing with that statement and instead arguing that he thinks music festivals are a good idea.

So what about Izzy? Well Izzy says, "Festivals are an outrageous waste of time and money.

How can anyone justify the damage they do to local green spaces?" So really great stuff here.

Not only is she using that emotive word outrageous, but she's also got that rhetorical question, really getting her audience to think about the issue.

And obviously we know from the use of outrageous waste of time that he or she agrees with that statement.

So already we're getting different views on both sides of the argument.

So let's pause here and check our understanding so far.

True or false, you shouldn't spend too much time worrying about the information you are given in the task.

Just locate the statement and begin thinking about your initial response as soon as you can.

So pause the video here while you have a think and decide if you think this is true or false, and when you've decided and want me to reveal the correct answer, click play and we'll continue.

Welcome back and well done to those of you who said false.

So why is that? Well, as well as the statement that we should respond to as we found out at the beginning of the lesson, there is lots of other useful information included in the task.

For example, the audience and the type of text that we are required to write.

So it's really important to give yourself a couple of minutes to really consider that task carefully before you start your planning.

So we've answered that first question then, what is your initial response to the statement? We've all begun to form our overarching argument.

So now it's time for us to think about some reasons.

Why do we think this? Why have we taken the stance that we have? And I personally think the best way to do that is to use a mind map to develop our ideas.

We can put that initial stance in the middle and then we can begin to explode all of our ideas around it.

So this takes me on to our first practise task of today's lesson.

So what I'd like you to do is mind map reasons why you think festivals should be banned.

So, as we said, you would put that in the middle of your circle and then all the way round is where you can put some ideas and there are lots of different questions that you might want to consider.

How might it affect local businesses? How might it affect the environment? What could it be like to live near to the festival? Because remember, you are delivering this speech to local people.

How might it affect local residents? Very important because they're your audience.

And also how could it affect the area's reputation? Now don't worry if this is not your main stance, if you'd actually decided that you were going to argue that festivals shouldn't be banned.

'Cause in the second half of the lesson we are going to need to use arguments from both sides of the debate.

So we'll come to thinking about that other side later on.

So do for now, just focus on whether festivals should be banned and we'll worry about perhaps why they shouldn't later on.

So pause the video here while you take some time to add your ideas onto that mind map.

Really trying to aim for as much detail as possible.

So pause the video here and click play when you're ready for us to feedback together.

Welcome back.

So I hope you had time to think really carefully about the different reasons that could support this overarching argument.

So here are a few things that you might have said.

First of all, festivals are not necessarily good for the local economy because a lot of the money spent during the week, perhaps where a festival is taking place, is spent on site.

It's not necessarily spent in local businesses, but rather businesses that have come into the area for the festival.

There are obvious environmental concerns such as pollution and the litter that is left behind.

We could also argue that festivals encourage antisocial behaviour.

There are lots of people, there are lots of crowds, there are also lots of people drinking which could lead to that antisocial behaviour.

We could argue that the noise pollution might affect vulnerable people in the local area, for example, the elderly.

And finally we could also argue it doesn't really help with tourism as people visit the festival and not the wider area.

So perhaps local attractions wouldn't necessarily really benefit from all the extra people in the area because the people are only there for the festival and then they're going home again.

So over to you for a discussion question.

So which of these ideas or one of the ideas perhaps that you have noted down do you think is going to have the most impact in a speech? If we were arguing that festivals should be banned, which of these reasons do you think is most compelling and most likely to convince your audience and why do you think that is? So take a moment to make some notes or share your responses with the people around you, remembering that we really need to justify our reasons.

And when you're ready to continue, click play.

So we've made it to the halfway point of today's lesson, so well done for all your hard work so far, we are well on the way to being able to plan this effective speech.

So the next step for us, now we've got that initial stance.

We know which side of the argument is going to be our overarching one.

It's time for us to explore the opposite point of view while we think about building and refuting a counter-argument.

So Lucas and Izzy are discussing their approaches for writing an effective speech.

So Izzy says, "Now I've chosen my main stance, I'm going to drive home my core message as much as possible.

All my ideas will link closely to this main argument and I'll be careful to make sure my explanations don't wander away from this." Whereas Lucas says, "I'm going to aim for a balanced argument considering both sides of the argument.

I'll probably write two to three paragraphs for my main argument and then devote a paragraph to exploring the opposite point of view." So over to you for a quick fire discussion then.

Whose approach do you think will result in the most effective speech? And ideally, why do you think that? So take a minute to discuss it, make some notes and then click play when you're ready for us to feedback together.

Okay, welcome back.

So bit of a tricky one here because actually there was some valid points raised by both of our students.

So let's explore their approaches in a bit more detail.

So actually Izzy was right to identify that an effective speech needs a strong central argument.

And it's a really good idea to have that core message that you are trying to drive home as much as possible by linking all your other ideas to that main argument.

However, it can be far more effective to consider other perspectives in particular an alternate view.

So why do you think this is? Why could it be so effective to think about an alternative view? Think about the opposite perspective to the one you've taken.

So pause the video here where you take some time to think, share your responses with other people or make some notes.

And when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Welcome back.

So let's explore what a counter-argument is and why it can help to strengthen your argument.

And as we go through this, see how this perhaps matched up to the ideas that you guys were discussing a moment ago.

So I think the best way to describe a counter-argument is to think of it like a last-chance attempt to persuade every single member of the audience because obviously no matter what topic we give a speech about, not everybody's going to agree with us.

People have their own personal opinions, their own personal experiences that lead them to take a certain stance on an issue.

And while hopefully using lots of persuasive language, we're going to persuade them, we're not necessarily going to persuade everyone.

And this is where the counter-argument comes in handy.

So let's explore a scenario.

So imagine that you are giving a speech about why people should eat more vegetables.

And at the beginning of your speech, 30% of the audience already agree with you.

That's what they thought anyway.

They think everyone should eat more vegetables.

20% of the audience disagree with you for whatever reason.

Maybe they don't like vegetables, they don't see it as a necessary part of our diet, they disagree with you.

And then we've got 50% who are in the middle, they're open to being persuaded, they don't quite agree at the beginning, but hopefully they might.

So as you make your main points, some of this undecided portion of the audience are persuaded by your passionate arguments.

And if you see here, that middle block has shifted over, we've got a much larger proportion of the audience who now agree with you, which is great, but we do still have quite a significant proportion that either don't or are undecided, and then you deliver your counter-argument.

So by explaining the alternative view, you are able to appeal to these people, the undecided or the people that disagree with you because this is where you are reflecting their opinions because perhaps the reason that they disagree with you or they're still undecided is because they have this opposite stance.

So by acknowledging the opposite stance, it makes them, A, it grabs their attention, but it also means that they might find it easy to relate to you as a speaker because you are speaking their language now, you are reflecting their views.

So this is going to help to really engage them.

They're going to be paying attention and they're perhaps going to start to be a bit more open-minded about what it is you're saying.

So you've introduced this alternative view.

Some may argue for example, and this is where you refute that counter-argument.

And what I mean by that is you crush it.

So you show how it is untrue, inaccurate or incorrect.

And if you notice that speech bubble there down with our speaker, we've got that double tick because actually what's happening by refuting that alternative view, you are helping to really strengthen that original argument.

So here is where you need to use your most persuasive devices because you've got their attention by reflecting their view.

So we need to make the most of that time that we've got that attention by completely crushing or refuting that view so that our audience may be more open-minded to changing their opinion.

So this is where you are able to prove that that original argument is even stronger because it still applies even when it's faced with that opposite view.

And hopefully in doing that, you will be able to persuade a few disagreeing or undecided audience members because you've disproved their views so effectively.

So if you see here we have lost our undecided portion of the audience, they have even moved one way or the other, and now our smallest proportion of the audience by significant margin is that disagree, actually the majority of the audience by the end of this speech have come round to agreeing with the speaker, which is where we want to be.

So let's begin to build our counter-argument by considering the alternative view.

So this is why I was saying earlier, don't worry if that wasn't your main stance because we were going to mind map both sides anyway.

So earlier on we were thinking carefully about the reasons why festivals should be banned.

So now it's time for us to think about why they shouldn't.

So pause the video here while you take some time to discuss with the people around you or make some notes thinking why festivals shouldn't be banned.

We're thinking about the opposite view to the one we took before.

And actually a really fantastic way to think about that alternative view is to go back and have a look at some of the ideas that you came up with for task A and think if I have the opposite stance to that, what might I argue in response to that? What might somebody with the opposite view think about that issue? So pause the video here while you think carefully and mind map some ideas and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Welcome back, could hear some really interesting discussions and I was particularly impressed to see lots of you directly responding to the answers that you came up with for task A.

So thinking really carefully about what those alternative views might be.

So let's have a look at some of the responses that you might have said.

So we could have said locals often get discounted tickets to amazing cultural events.

So thinking about a really great opportunity for local people there.

There are also lots of opportunities for local talent to play on the smaller stages.

So again, this could perhaps appeal to residents that are musical themselves.

A lot of affluent festival goers often use local hotels and restaurants, et cetera.

By affluent here, I mean perhaps people who are a bit more well off and they're not necessarily wanting to be staying in a tent, so they might book into a local hotel instead.

So some people might actually engage with local businesses.

It also helps to put the local area on the map.

So okay, it might not boost tourism during the week of the festival, but by putting that place on the map it might help boost tourism for the rest of the year because obviously a lot of festivals have TV coverage, there'll be other sorts of coverage in the media.

So the name of that place is being advertised.

And finally it creates many local jobs, especially for young people.

There are always lots of roles for people to work festivals.

It might also be an opportunity for local businesses to get involved, for example, with catering.

So now we've explored both sides of the argument, do you still stand by your initial opinion? So take a moment to look through both of the mind maps that you've come up with and think really carefully about which of those arguments seems the strongest, which do you think you're going to be able to argue the most effectively? So pause the video here while you take some time to make some notes, or if you're working with other people, take some time to debate your views and really work out which side of the argument you think that you stand on.

So pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Did you change your original stance or not? I could overhear some people say, no, I think that I'm even further cemented into my original argument, whereas there were lots of other people saying, no, now I've thought about both sides, I actually think I've convinced myself the other way.

As long as you think you've got a strong argument, it doesn't matter which side of the debate you are on.

So I've put all of the different answers and responses that we came up with for both of our mind map onto this table.

So I've summarised lots of reasons why festivals should be banned and lots of reasons why they shouldn't.

So now we've considered both sides of the argument, it is time to select our key ideas and plan the structure of the speech.

And a great way to do this is, for your main stance, you need to choose two to three reasons and you're going to really develop each of these reasons perhaps in a paragraph of their own.

This will form the main body of your speech.

This is where you are going to make those main points linked to that initial stance.

And then for your counter-argument, you need to choose one reason from the opposite view.

So if the main stance for your speech is that festivals should be banned, you might want to choose two to three reasons from that box on the left or from your ideas, from your first mind map.

And then you need to choose one reason that you think you're going to be able to refute from the other side.

So let's explore what Jun chose.

So for his main stance, he was arguing that festivals should be banned.

So he chose two reasons.

First of all, he wanted to focus on the environmental concern, so the pollution and the litter.

And he also wanted to focus on that issue of how they encourage antisocial behaviour.

And then his opposite view, he wants to focus on how local people often get discounted tickets to amazing cultural events.

So these first two reasons are going to become the body of Jun's speech.

So I've numbered them because they are now representing paragraph one and paragraph two of the main body of his speech.

And then Jun can use that opposite view for his counter-argument.

So I have labelled that as three because that would come as the third paragraph or the third key point in that body of the speech.

So how to build a counter-argument.

So we've got this reason, so now we need to know how to actually structure that counter-argument.

So a really great way to start it off.

And once you, you know, you get used to writing them, you won't necessarily always need to use a sentence starter, but it's a really good way to start off.

So some people may argue, so that's acknowledging this portion of the audience that might not agree with you.

They are perhaps those some people.

So can we help Jun to build this sentence? So have a think, look at the point he's made and look at that sentence starter.

Can you help Jun to construct this sentence? So take some time to discuss it with the people around you or make some notes and click play when you're ready for us to continue.

So how could we help Jun to build this sentence? Well, we could say something like, some people may argue that festivals benefit the local community because residents often get discounted tickets to amazing cultural events.

So we've just put those two things together to form that first sentence of the counter-argument.

So what do we need to do next? Well, the next step is we need to use comparative conjunctions to refute it.

So we need those words that we use to identify a difference because we are about to switch views.

So here I've used however, and what we need to do after that is explain why the counter-argument isn't accurate or is less important than your main stance.

So this is where we try to crush it.

So I've used the word however, but you could use contrastingly, on the other hand, although, there are lots of different comparative conjunctions that you could use.

So I've said however, a cheap day out cannot justify such environmental damage.

And if you notice what I've done there is actually linked back up to one of the points from the main body.

So it's quite a clever way that you can refute your counter-argument is to say, actually the point that I made earlier still helps to refute this point.

Your counter-argument still doesn't stand up to one of the points that I made earlier.

It can actually be really effective to use rhetorical questions to refute the counter-argument as this really encourages the audience to consider their own stance.

So over to you again then.

Can we help Jun to rephrase this sentence using a rhetorical question? So remember that we are looking for a question, doesn't necessarily need to be answered, could be answered by the writer if you wanted to, but it most importantly needs to make the audience think.

So we need to be really thought-provoking.

So pause the video here while you take some time to think, make some notes, discuss it with the people around you, and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Welcome back.

Lots of really fantastic ideas there for how Jun could use a rhetorical question to really strengthen that counter-argument.

So let's just look at an example.

So we could have said something like, some people may argue that festivals benefit the local community because residents often get discounted tickets to amazing cultural events.

However, can a cheap day out really justify such environmental damage? When you no longer see wildlife out on your walks replaced instead with old bottles and cans, will you feel glad you chose a discounted ticket over a lifetime of natural beauty? So I'd like you to have a look at this counter-argument then.

Can you see any other rhetorical devices? So we know we've got two rhetorical questions there because we can see those question marks and question words.

However, I'd like you to see if this example is combining any other rhetorical devices to really grab the audience's attention.

So pause the video here where you take some time to analyse this counter-argument and identify those rhetorical devices and when you're ready for us to discuss it together, click play and we'll continue.

So did we manage to spot any other rhetorical devices? Well, well done if you managed to spot that that final sentence uses hyperbole and direct address to dramatise the environmental damage to the worst extreme in order to refute it.

And this can be really effective to convince the audience because if we have a look when you no longer see wildlife out on your walks replaced instead with old bottles and cans.

Now I think it's fair to argue that although the local environment will suffer if a music festival comes to town, I'm not sure that a week's worth of a music festival will kill off all the wildlife and create a sea of rubbish that local residents will never ever see the end of.

However, using that hyperbole creates a really vivid image in the audience's mind.

And remember the audience were local people so they wouldn't necessarily want to view their home in that way.

And then we are really doubling down on grabbing their attention because we've also got a direct address when you no longer see wildlife on your walks.

So this will be particularly effective if any of the members of the audience do enjoy going out on local walks because this is something they're going to find really easy to imagine.

So your argument's going to be particularly effective with that portion, perhaps of your undecided audience.

So let's pause here and check our understanding.

Which of these techniques help you to effectively refute a counter-argument by encouraging the audience to consider their stance? Pause the video here while you take some time to think.

And when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer, click play.

Welcome back and well done to those of you who said B and D, we've got that rhetorical question.

But also remember that hyperbole, dramatising your sentence where you're refuting that argument can really help to convince your audience.

And also that direct address, remember grabbing their attention by using those second person pronouns, you yourself.

So onto the second practise task of today's lesson, and this is where we are going to use all the knowledge and skills that we've acquired in the lesson so far to plan the structure of our speech.

So here we've got a multiple paragraph outline grid.

So you've got space for you to include your main stance, and then you've got three boxes for you to include each of the paragraphs.

If we were using a multiple paragraph outline, we would also have some other boxes underneath for supporting detail and concluding sentences.

But for now, we are just going to think about our main ideas and sketch that outline, the skeleton of our speech.

So using lots of the information we've come up with from our discussions and from that other task where you have mind mapped your ideas, I'd also like you to try using comparative conjunctions and rhetorical questions to refute that counter-argument.

So remember in that paragraph three box, we are putting that alternative view, but we're also putting how we're going to refute that argument.

So we're going to need to see both sides of the argument in that third box.

So pause the video here and take as much time as you need to give this a really good go.

And when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Welcome back.

So let's have a look at an example from one of our Oak pupils, Sam.

So here is how Sam planned her speech.

So her main stance was that music festivals create a fantastic opportunity to put isolated rural communities on the map.

So we know that she's already disagreeing with that statement.

She doesn't think that they should be banned, and we know that because we've got that word, fantastic opportunity.

Remember she's using that emotive descriptive language as opposed to simply saying, I agree or I disagree.

So let's have a look at her supporting arguments first.

So her first supporting argument is that music festivals shine a spotlight on the local community in the media, which may boost tourism all year round.

And a second supporting argument is that this will generate jobs for local people, especially young people who may want to work at the festival to experience the performances.

So she's combined that idea of it being a great cultural event perhaps that people might want to have discounted or free access to, but also the idea that it will create jobs for people as well.

So now onto the counter-argument.

Remember she's going to want to look at the opposite point of view here.

So she's going to want to think about why her audience might think that music festivals are a bad idea.

So some people may argue that noise pollution could upset some residents.

However, surely a weekend of inconvenience is outweighed by the year round boost to the local economy.

So we've got that rhetorical question there as well, and we've also got that, some may argue.

So she's put in that alternative view and then she's refuting it.

So take some time to review your plan and ask yourself the following questions.

Did you use comparative conjunctions and rhetorical questions to refute that counter-argument? So words like, however, on the other hand, although, and did you structure the point where you were refuting that argument as a rhetorical question? Because remember, we really saw how effective that was.

So pause the video while you take some time to review the structure of your speech and click play when you're ready for us to continue.

Okay, so we've made it to the end of today's lesson.

So let's just summarise what we've covered in this lesson.

Take a clear stance for or against the statement, alternative arguments should be refuted at least once in the piece.

Contrast creates a robust sense of a writer's perspective by demonstrating feeling towards all angles of an argument.

Use rhetorical questions, direct address and hyperbole to expose the flaws of the opposition in an emotive way.

And finally, carefully sequence and vary subtle and dramatic shifts in tone to draw reactions from the reader.

So thanks for joining me in today's lesson and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Have a fantastic day.