Sophistry And Rhetoric In The Debate A Big Australia

Hook: The overview of last five to ten years of Australia’s cities, like Sydney and Melbourne, within the high increasing rate of population. The audiences’ anxious of population, especially immigration, is explored the importance of rhetorical strength in this debate.

Method: This essay will analyse skills of rhetoric, like appeal to ethos, that debaters used in A big Australia (ABC 2018). Specially, theories of rhetoric and sophistry will be used to support speakers’ arguments.

NOTE – This essay is structured using the classical oration. But refutation is presented before confirmation to focus on the falseness of capitalists and politicians.

Overall Argument: The rhetorical techniques used by arguers are reasonable and apposite. But there is some interferences and control over the judgment of the audience. Thus, it is a little unmoral.

Narratio: The context of A big Australia

Evidence: Matthew Bryan, a questioner in the ABC show, indicates that Australia’s cities like Sydney and Melbourne are dealing with serious situations, such as public transport, hospitals and overcrowded schools, due to the highest immigration rate in the developed world. · Bryan’ (2018) question shows that the rapidly growing immigrants have bad impact on residents’ lives. And the question lead speakers to explain and debate the issues later. Refutatio: Analysing Bob Carr claims that he argues the falseness of capitalists and politicians (part 1)

Evidence (video quotes): Bob narrating – “Barry O’Farrell [a Liberal NSW premier] declared he was a great supporter of a big Australia, he wanted more ambitious immigration and one of his first acts was to cancel plans for high-rise in his electorate along the north shore rail line. ” (ABC 2018)

Analysis: Bob Carr points out the dishonesty of politicians and business figures and what they are interested in is the economic rise rather than solve immigration problems. (Davies 2018)

Evidence (rhetorical theory): Fawn states that one solution to highlight the importance of immigration is focus on vulnerable groups so public will show more mercy and sympathy about this issue (Fawn 2010).

Analysis: In the debate, Carr relates the problem of child’s education and families’ housing issue to the fakeness of politicians and business figures behavior. In other words, to rise sympathy of audience, Carr use appeal to pathos and appeal to authority to complete the argument.

Confirmatio: Analysing debaters (part 2)

Normally, people will consider the immigration problem as the most important issue during this Q&A show, but not if speakers induct them to others.

Evidence (video quotes): John Daley said “So, Matthew, I think, if you look at the numbers, it suggests that people are not putting migration as the top worries. But they are, for example, now citing housing affordability as the thing that they are second most concerned about, just after health. They’re clearly very concerned about congestion in traffic. ”

Analysis: Daley use red herring (divert viewers' attention to other things by adding other factors) to reduce the people’s emphasis on importance of immigration issues.

Evidence (rhetorical theory): Alfano and O'Brien (2011) state that “an intimate connection with the audience by soliciting powerful emotions” can help lead audiences to what speakers want them to.

Analysis: Daley mentions some other factors which seems have more relationships with the problems were used to blaming on immigration itself. Now Daley transfer their opinions to weakness of government’s plan by arising people’s intimate emotions. So, all the problems, like overcrowded schools and hospitals, will not be mainly blamed on immigration issues.

Peroratio: Conclusion – the skilled rhetoric language of debaters

Summation: However, debaters in the show have demonstrated skilled debate techniques to achieve their goals by manipulating audience emotions and ideas while defending their arguments to some degree. While it is sometimes moral but sometimes not.

Sense of Significance: The debate shows the nature of rhetoric which might be defined as “the art that humans use to process all the messages we send and receive” (Roskelly & Jolliffe, 2009). Therefore, in this case, A big Australia perfectly demonstrates the linguistic charm and debating skills, although some of speakers manipulate the audience a little, but most of the time the debate is moral and worth studying.

Call to action: Improved understandings of rhetoric language among several questions and answers in the show and offer a wider sight of immigration issues. At the same time, let people pay more attention to dialectical thinking.