Guten Morgen Foundation
Bless the whole World!

 6 Rhetoric

6.1 Words of motivation

The effective use of linguistic means is also of considerable importance in the field of sport. In club life, coaches are constantly confronted with the need to argue in a targeted manner and to appear convincingly in terms of language. There are many occasions for teachers to prove themselves rhetorically, for example at official celebratory occasions, speeches, presentations, lectures, discussions, meetings, negotiations or at demonstrations.

Being articulate is one of the skills every coach should possess. The teacher's language and presentation technique contribute to the success of his training.

Anyone who trains and teaches Chun Ki Do must convey their information to the training group in an understandable and sustainable manner. He should therefore know which means of language are necessary in order to convey the subject to the pupils quickly, effectively and without loss of transmission.

The military language applies (also in the civilian area) as exemplary short, concise and unambiguous. Mutual understanding in joint thinking and acting is the prerequisite for success. This unanimity is based on the same principles, the same legal thinking, the common goal of education and training, and on uniform language with unambiguous terms.

6.2 Modes of action of rhetoric

A good rhetorical performance can not only inform, but:

- enforce intent
- Make training effective
- Pass on experiences
- Express feelings
- Trigger actions
- Describing ideas (and convincing others of them)
- form opinions (influence and change)
- Win people over for yourself or a task
- Sell products
- win sympathy
- Convey beliefs
- Conduct lessons
- Achieve behavioural changes
- Conduct negotiations successfully
- impart knowledge
- Express wishes

6.2.1 Common rhetorical errors are:

- talk unprepared (poorly prepared).
- too much excitement (cramps)
- Speech inhibitions (pre-speech jitters)
- Lack of self-confidence
- lack of momentum (lack of dynamics)
- no supporting gestures
- expressionless face; if you can't smile, don't open a shop (china)
- Swallowing of syllables (especially final syllables)
- speak too fast
- keep too little eye contact
- no modulation in the voice
- Fillers like ah, hmm, etc.
- too many subordinate clauses, too long sentences
- Signs of listener fatigue are not recognized
- too few breaks
- wet pronunciation
- constant clearing of the throat (coughing)
- empty, flat idioms (platitudes, platitudes)
- too many nouns ending

6.3 Tips and Advice

6.3.1 Maintain eye contact

Before you speak, reflect, seek contact with your listener (auditorium) with your eyes. Observe during the lecture whether the eyes of your listeners are directed at you. Maintain eye contact again and again, even when presenting demonstration objects. Consciously look to the left; this way you avoid the usual twist to the right in the viewing direction.
6.3.2 Maintain inner calm
Even the best technical preparation of a lecture or presentation has no effect if the speaker sorts his manuscript with trembling hands or starts to stutter. If you tend to get nervous, say to yourself in your inner voice before you start your explanation (I'm very calm; I can do it, etc.). Observe how security and self-confidence displace nervousness and stage fright after just the first few sentences.

6.3.3 Speak naturally

Avoid using pointedly cutting-pithy or overly ingratiating language. Artificial language behaviour has a stopping effect. Do not use foreign words where there are equivalent German terms. The listeners also miss the box sentences. Humour can be liberating – for both sides. But humorous remarks are a risky business. It depends on the dosage and the right connections.

6.3.5 Pay attention to your outward appearance

Clothes make the man, although the uniform suit in the sporting area does not allow much leeway here, there are occasionally unmistakable differences within this relatively narrow framework. Therefore, check the condition of your exterior.

6.3.6 Posture determines linguistic success

Good rhetoricians rarely speak while seated. If, in certain training procedures (e.g. discussion), all participants remain seated, the respective speaker must sit up straight and place their hands on the table.

6.3.7 For papers and lectures:

Your posture is unconsciously transmitted to the listener and influences their willingness to absorb. Choose a permanent location. Stand tall, free and unconstrained. Do not hold onto the table or the lectern. Don't put your hands in your pockets, either. Don't keep walking up and down or playing with any objects (pen, pointer, chalk). Avoid repetitive movements with your arms or legs.

6.3 Tips and Advice

6.3.8 Structure the content

Structure your presentation clearly (introduction – main part – conclusion). Captivate the listener's attention right from the start with interesting lead stories. Note consistency in construction and clarity in structure. Always keep your goal in mind, which you formulated in the introduction. Always point this out in the main part as well. At the end, summarize the most important things again.

By the way: the popular closing formula Thank you... is superfluous if the speaker structures his content in such a way that the listener recognizes for himself that the explanations are now over.

6.3.8 Use a manuscript (a handout)

Manuscripts are necessary presentation documents. Few people possess the ability to deliver impromptu speeches. The manuscript is your reliable help and stage direction. It forms the guidelines for your presentation and helps you, like a secret prompter. But: Don't stick to the manuscript! Speak freely as much as possible. Don't read the manuscript verbatim. Use the keywords highlighted in the left margin of the manuscript.

6.4 Interview/Conversation

6.4.1 Interview

dialogical question-and-answer conversation, whereby the journalist (reporter) determines the course of events with his questions.

Areas of application:

Current reports, factual reports and documentation

Regarding the conduct of the interviewer:

In the preliminary talk, ask about the interview, topic and connections, motives, time estimates
Find out in which newspaper or place the interview should be published and who else will have a chance to speak
Ask what time is available for the interview, be sparing with addressing the reporter by name
Give short, precise answers (quick interplay between questions and answers)

If you cannot answer a question, say so clearly and state the reason (e.g. confidentiality)
If questions are asked about a topic that has not been agreed upon, stop the interview
Don't let yourself be emotionally provoked
Speak in short main and subordinate clauses (avoid compound sentence constructions, foreign words and technical terms)
Formulate and argue credibly
Look (as opposed to the statement) at the reporter If necessary: ​​have a cheat sheet (DIN A7) in hand (gives psychological security)

Types of questions and possible responses
Question forms Examples of possible responses

Open questions:

What do you think of martial arts?
Closed questions:
Should martial arts be banned?
Alternative questions:
Are you for or against martial arts?
Activating questions:
How, by what, why, (so-called questions) with what, what for Chun Ki Do?
Decision questions:
How would you decide...?


If so, what follows?
Problem Questions:
How do you see the problem of violence?
Chain questions:
Who has to do what, when and where?

Confirmation Questions:

You, the well-being of your wife is surely very important to you
match question:
Beautiful music, isn't it?
Raid questions spontaneous, aggressive questions that were kept secret in the preliminary talks for interviews.
Confidential Questions:
Where are their weaknesses?

Rhetorical questions:

Do you know what it means to be a police officer these days?

6.5 Argumentation

6.5.1 The rule of three

The rule of three is a methodical rule of thumb to logically build up short statements (statements, interviews). For example, it leads from the ACTUAL to the TARGET in three related steps.
The following options are available for arguing with the rule of three:
From the general to the specific. e.g. B.

1. Most people think …
(martial arts promote body, mind and soul)

2. Recently, however, there have been increasing concerns that ...(martial arts make you aggressive)

3. So we should...
(talk about it together)

a) Die chain of arguments

1. On the one hand, Chun Ki Do means...
(folk sport)

2. Sport also prevents...

3. there is also...
(many reasons to practice Chun Ki Do)

b) The dialectical structure

1. There are some reasons for the death penalty
2. On the other hand, there have been many miscarriages of justice...
3. So the discussion should be conducted very carefully...

  • Nuremberg 1983 Neuberger, O.: Working together - talking to each other, 6th edition, Munich 1985 Neumann ,
  • Talking effectively, Grafenau 1980, Portner ,
  • Convince with words - Speech and argumentation technique in the Bundeswehr, Bonn 1987 Portner ,
  • Be right in any case, Munich 1991, Schulz v. Thun, Talking to each other: disturbances and clarifications, Reinbek 1988

c) Comparison of two positions

1 Mr S. said …
(martial arts make you aggressive)

2. Ms. K. contradicted him...
(martial arts makes peaceful)

3 Perhaps there is a third aspect...
(which we should consider; experiences)

d) Attempt at a compromise

1. Many people have practised martial arts...
(and different experiences exist)

2. This also creates problems, ...
(there are black sheep everywhere)

3. We need to find a satisfactory solution here...
(and talk about it together with all parties)

3.5 Argumentation

3.5.2 The Rule of Five

a) From the general to the particular. e.g. B.

1. The general view is this...
(that martial arts are dangerous)

2. From our experience, however, it is different ...
(we know our audience)

3. Because first...
(We are a family association; every social class is represented

4. also secondly...

(a reflection of the population)

5. Consequently, I mean...
(must be discussed here in a differentiated manner, because we represent the point of view of many people here).

b) Die chain of arguments, z. B.

1. I think Proposition X is dangerous...
(to ban martial arts)

2. We must consider whether not...
(Mr. X argued unilaterally)

3. With seems the better way when...
(we compromise)

4. Then we can...
(solve this conflict together)

5. So we have to decide together and objectively whether (do Chun Ki Do in the future)

c) The dialectical structure, e.g. B.

1. The speaker presented a variety of new insights, ...
2. Among other things, he said that …
3. On the other hand, it must also be held that
4. Comparing both views, then...
5. For this reason, I propose...

d) Comparison of two positions, e.g. B.

1. The A-party has the following position, …
2. She justifies it with...
3. The B party takes the opposite view, …
4. She justifies it with...
5. I can't make up my mind about either of them, but...

e) Attempt at a compromise

1. A claim...
2. B disagreed, pointing out...
3. It seems to me that the two meet at one point...
4. Here might be the solution, because...
5. We should continue to think in this direction. ...

f) One (e.g. the general) view is excluded, e.g. B.

1. The majority of our population think so
2. So far, everything has revolved around ...
3. It was overlooked that ...
4. But this seems particularly important to me, because ...
5. I therefore submit the application that ...

3.5 Argumentation

6.5.3 22 legal reasoning techniques

The following (permitted) argumentation techniques have proven themselves to invalidate or refute opposing arguments in debates and discussions. At the same time, these techniques can be used to effectively enforce one's own arguments.

1. Partially agree with the opponent, but fundamentally disagree (yes-but technique).
2. Reverse opposing arguments (precisely because of technique).
3. Emphasize the weakest opposing argument, then refute it
4. Present opposing objections as already discussed.
5. Depreciate opposing statements as 'overstated'.
6. Have complex terms defined, then attack partial aspects.
7. Elevate opponents, but doubt his factual statement.
8. Demand a return to the topic, point out byways.
9. Questioning the opponent's competence.
10. Show detail of a statement as inconsistent and reject the overall statement.
11. Have the question repeated.
12. Question opposing questions or, if necessary, intercept them with counter-questions
13. Induce examples to general statements
14. Devalue and reject opposing views as utopian 'wishful thinking'
15. If there are several questions, only answer the simple ones. 16. Sometimes agree with the opponent and offer a compromise.
17. Repeat your own good arguments, 18. Criticize interruptions by opponents and add your own contribution.
19. If the opponent is acting subjectively, demand objectivity. 20. Referring to authorities or bodies of high credibility.
21. Deny own competence. 22. Suggest postponement (pause for thought) if necessary.

6.5 Argumentation

6.5.4 Dishonest Reasoning

The Lazy Tricks (1)

1. instead of arguing factually, one attacks the person of the opponent.

2. Twisting technique

— one takes up the opponent's theses and expressions and gives them the wrong meaning.

3. Overdoing exercise technique

— one exaggerates the opponent's thesis to dangerous or absurd levels. One ignores all restrictions made by the opponent.

4. Insinuation Technique

— one assumes that the opponent has intentions and draws conclusions from his thesis that are not contained in it at all.

5. Dodge Technique

— one does not go into the arguments of the opponent at all, but avoids another problem.

6. Displacement technique:

— you ignore the main points of the opponent's argument and concentrate your attacks on details.

7. Confusion Technique:

— One tries to obscure the opponent's position through complicated distinctions and issue mixtures.

6.5.5 Argumentation 1

Since people have been communicating with each other, they either want to inform or to convince. Information is conveyed by means of facts, conviction by means of arguments that allow for value judgments. An argument that is convincing causes standpoints to falter. An argument can bring about a change of perspective. If that doesn't work, then it's just a stylistic figure that arouses admiration at best, but doesn't convince. An argument that is not convincing will not be helped by repetition.

1. What are arguments?

From a strictly philosophical point of view, they are dialectical conclusions aimed at accepting or rejecting a disputed thesis. An argument cannot provide certainty—and one cannot argue against certainty!

Only when certainty is disputed does the argument come into play. The goal of an argument is not to derive consequences of particular premises, but to evoke or reinforce an audience's agreement with the propositions one is proposing to their assent. It presupposes a mental contact between the speaker and his audience.

Aristotle had already stated:

Not only should one not argue with just anyone, one should also avoid arguing about certain issues: “Those who doubt whether to honour gods and love their parents need chastisement, and those who doubt whether snow knows is or isn't, you just have to look carefully.” Only then is the listener really won, says Augustine.

When he loves what you promise, fears what you threaten, hates what you accuse, to whom he gladly does what you commend, when he regrets what you call pitiable, when he delights in what you joyfully praise when he has pity on those whom you show him pitiable in your speech, and when he flees from those against whom you warn him with dreadful words.

In a persuasive speech, the premise and arguments are generalizable. It is essential that the speaker only chooses topics for which he can count on the approval of his audience as a starting point for his presentation. If the conclusion is too contrary to the hearer's beliefs, then the hearer is more likely to dispute a premise, thus frustrating all the speaker's efforts.

2. How can a fact or truth be disproved? The most effective technique for disputing them is to demonstrate their inevitability with other facts or other truths that are themselves considered more certain, and best presented in a broader context of indispensable facts or truths. In addition to facts or truths, we also rely on assumptions. The advantage of assumptions is that whoever contradicts them has to bear the burden of proof!

3.6 How to convince?

The real realm of reasoning is where values ​​are at stake. Plato showed that the real realm of dialectics is that which defies calculation, weight and measure, and where the just and the unjust, the beautiful and the ugly, the good and the bad are disputed. Skilfully one argues, says Aristotle. Who destroys prejudices at the beginning and burdens the opponent at the end.
If the opponent's argument has impressed the audience, you have to refute it right at the beginning and thus clear the terrain before you can put forward your arguments.

The known, the predictable, the banal argument, the commonplace has less strength than an original, new and relevant argument. The audience assumes that the opponent must also recognize the banal argument and still support the opposing thesis.

Whoever, by continuing his opponent's analogy, uses it to his own advantage has a stronger argument than he who opposes one analogy with another. Example: The German armed forces are the largest peace movement, or conscripts protect the conscience of those who refuse to do military service for reasons of conscience.

If you ignore the audience's approval of the premises of your speech in your argument, you commit the gravest mistake.
Those who just talk without caring about the listener's reactions are more likely to be seen as a visionary driven by the inner demon than as a rational person wishing to share their views. On the other hand, in his rhetoric, Aristotle advises “of our own accord to accuse anyone who accuses us, since it would be nonsensical if the accuser were deemed implausible but his speech credible”.

The cardinal error of every argument is to overestimate the effect of your arguments. (Wishful thinking).

3.7. References

If you want to go deeper into rhetoric and argumentation: Aristotle's rhetoric, Paderborn 1959 Blum: rhetoric for executives,

  • Landsberg 1981 Carnegie, D.: Speech. The Power of the Spoken Word, Berlin 1981 Elertsen, Hu Harting,
  • Modern rhetoric, Heidelberg 1982 Langer, Iu Schulz v. Thun, F.: Comprehensibility, Munich 1974 Lay,
  • Leading through the word, Munich 1978 Lay, R.: Manipulation through language, Reinbek 1980 Molcho,
  • Body language as dialogue, Munich 1988 Müller, KU: Speak - so that I can see you. The modern rhetoric handbook for everyone.