I really like your framework, Zack. I've been thinking how debaters tend to focus on some dimensions or arts while neglecting others. For example, Ben Shapiro is skilled in the Art of Argument and Art of Evidence, but his eloquence leaves something to be desired. While he certainly has an extensive vocabulary, his vocal quality is lacking. Perhaps it is due to how he was trained, but Ben seems to rely on spreading to overwhelm opponents - undoubtedly effective but lacking in grace. Vocal coach Vinh Giang talks about how one's voice can be thought of as an instrument. A melodious voice is one that is resonant with listeners. That is why actors like Jeremy Irons or Tom Hiddleston seem so charismatic and charming. Unfortunately, Ben Shapiro's potential is capped by his own vocal quality. People are apt to just tune him out, simply because how he sounds. Shallow, I know, but an important factor to persuasive speech nonetheless. Other factors include body language, attire, humor, and even visual aids, Now, this goes beyond the scope of the Art of Eloquence as you laid it out. I like to call it the Art of Charisma.
Other thoughts: While I think your framework is comprehensive and effective, I don't believe that renders Aristotle's framework as obsolete. That may not be what you meant, but that seems to be the implication. Considering you incorporated pathos with eloquence, I know that you did not intend to disparage Aristotle. I think we can go further to synthesize Aristotle's framework with your own. Ethos lines up with evidence, and logos is a component of argument. The result is an expansive and flexible framework instead of a substitutionary one.
It's so humbling to see a comment that clearly shows you understood what I was trying to say! You're right, I was proposing a more expansive model. Definitely don't think Aristotle is obsolete, it's just incomplete. Great contribution, I read what you had to say with interest!
This channel is a youtube hidden gem✨
That's incredibly kind of you - I still feel very much like a beginner
your videos are so helpful and deserve millions of views 😢😢❤
amazing as àlways
You're the first person who's ever commented on upload day!
Glad you liked it :)
I really like your framework, Zack. I've been thinking how debaters tend to focus on some dimensions or arts while neglecting others. For example, Ben Shapiro is skilled in the Art of Argument and Art of Evidence, but his eloquence leaves something to be desired. While he certainly has an extensive vocabulary, his vocal quality is lacking. Perhaps it is due to how he was trained, but Ben seems to rely on spreading to overwhelm opponents - undoubtedly effective but lacking in grace. Vocal coach Vinh Giang talks about how one's voice can be thought of as an instrument. A melodious voice is one that is resonant with listeners. That is why actors like Jeremy Irons or Tom Hiddleston seem so charismatic and charming. Unfortunately, Ben Shapiro's potential is capped by his own vocal quality. People are apt to just tune him out, simply because how he sounds. Shallow, I know, but an important factor to persuasive speech nonetheless. Other factors include body language, attire, humor, and even visual aids, Now, this goes beyond the scope of the Art of Eloquence as you laid it out. I like to call it the Art of Charisma.
Other thoughts: While I think your framework is comprehensive and effective, I don't believe that renders Aristotle's framework as obsolete. That may not be what you meant, but that seems to be the implication. Considering you incorporated pathos with eloquence, I know that you did not intend to disparage Aristotle. I think we can go further to synthesize Aristotle's framework with your own. Ethos lines up with evidence, and logos is a component of argument. The result is an expansive and flexible framework instead of a substitutionary one.
It's so humbling to see a comment that clearly shows you understood what I was trying to say!
You're right, I was proposing a more expansive model. Definitely don't think Aristotle is obsolete, it's just incomplete.
Great contribution, I read what you had to say with interest!