Public Speaking

Summary (^233)
vegetables? Humans are born omnivorous, meaning it is natural for us to eat both meat and
plants. What is inhumane about eating an animal for food? Weren’t we designed to do so?
f. Here is the second argument she attempts to counter. How well does she succeed? Explain
your answer.
People also argue that the laws of nature will take care of animals. Hunting has always been
a major part of the laws of nature. Without mountain lions to kill rabbits, the rabbit population
would be a long-gone species because of overpopulation. Humans as well as mountain lions
are animals. Our predation is as important to other animals, such as deer, as the mountain lion’s
predation is to rabbits.
g. What is the third argument she attempts to counter? What kind of reasoning does she use?
h. Which of the three arguments do you think she did the best job of minimizing? Which argument
did she confront the least adequately?
Animal activists harass hunters all the time. These people have false perceptions of what
hunting really is and who hunters really are. At a rally against deer hunting, a woman speaker
argued, “Hunters are barbarians who are in it for the kill. Hunters would use machine guns if they
could. Plus, the deer are so cute.” I think that argument is pathetic and holds absolutely no validity.
Another instance of hunter harassment occurred at Yellowstone National Park. An animal
activist was not satisfied with only verbal harassment, so he struck the hunter on the head
twice. Are animal activists really the peaceful and humane people they claim to be? And they
still believe that hunters are bloodthirsty, crazy, and inhumane!
i. Do these two examples pass the tests for their use? Are they typical? How does the speaker
generalize from them? How might she make her point instead?
j. Does calling an argument “pathetic” work well here? Why or why not?
Many of these misperceptions about hunters come from the association of hunters with
poachers. Hunters are not poachers! Poachers are people who kill animals when they want,
regardless of laws and regulations that were set to protect the animals. These are the kind of
people who hunt elephants for their ivory tusks or kill crocodiles for their skins. Poachers kill
deer in areas that are off-limits, during off-limit hunting seasons. These people are criminals
who are extremely harmful to wildlife. Hunters would turn in a poacher in an instant if they
caught one. Poachers give hunting a bad image in the eyes of the public. It’s too bad that the
animal activists don’t go after the poachers who are extremely harmful to animals and stop
pointing a finger at hunters who follow the laws and regulations.
k. Why does the speaker contrast hunters to poachers? In what ways, if any, is this an effective
argument?
If hunting is banned, just imagine a drive through the mountains on a road covered with
emaciated skeletons of cadaverous deer who died of starvation. No longer can you take a
picture of Bambi, your favorite deer that you saw every year at Yellowstone National Park.
For Bambi and his family were overpopulated, and they slowly wilted away until their final day.
Too bad there weren’t a few healthy bucks taken by hunting that year to keep Bambi and family
at a cozy carrying capacity where there was plenty of delicious food for all of them.
l. Here, the speaker uses a great deal of pathos. Identify emotional language and images. Is this
effective? Why or why not?
The argument that animal activists use against hunting is fabricated mainly from emotions.
If they are personally against killing an animal, I can respect that. But they have no place trying
to ban hunting. It is proven by biological facts that hunting is necessary for wildlife manage-
ment. It provides millions of dollars that fund the construction of programs that help wildlife.
It keeps species from overpopulating and starving to death. In order for wildlife to flourish at an
optimum population number, hunting must continue to be a major part of wildlife management.
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.