As we get further and further into the persuasive speech, I think it is very
helpful to start thinking in terms of status quo and burden of proof.
And, and why should you think through this?
Well, because as an advocate. In this speech you're an advocate.
And as an advocate, you're asking for a change to the status quo for the current
state of affairs. Or you're arguing against the change.
You are in essence saying to your audience either do this, or don't do
this. So you need to be thinking in terms of
what bar, what argumentative threshold you need to cross in that audiences mind.
If you're going to motivate them to take actions.
What, what is that threshold. What do you need to prove.
What is your burden of proof in order to motivate them to take action.
Now a lot of this you're going to have to think through your specific case.
Right. The burden of proof in a burning building
to convince people to exit the building Pretty low, right?
That's a change from the status quo, it's easy to get 'em outta there.
the, you know, the burden of cru-, proof in other cases, far higher.
So you need to, you need to vibrate this concept against the particulars of your
specific case. Nevertheless, it's a, it's a good way of
thinking, it's a nice intellectual tool for thinking through persuasive speech
encounters and argumentative encounters. And I think that having a solid
understanding of burden proof. Just makes life better.
I, I, I genuinely believe you're going to win more arguments that the end of this
lecture if you're unfamiliar with this concept now.
It's just a very useful way of thinking about what needs to occur in an argument,
what needs to occur in order for persuasion to occur...
So what I want to do is I just kind of want to talk a little bit about what the
status quo is and how you can think about the status quo in general and in your
specific case. And then I want to shift and talk about
burden of proof. First I'll work through an example of
burden of proof because this is very formally stated in law cases and then
we'll work through sort of burden of proof in argumentation.
So to begin with. Status quo.
Status quo gets a lot of bad rap, right I mean, you know it's certainly an American
political discourse. Status quo is framed as a bad thing, he
is not but a defender of the status quo. status quotidian, status quote-ian.
but it's not. Status quo is merely a descriptive term.
It simply means the existing state of affairs, what is status quo is neither
good nor is it bad, it is descriptive okay> So anytime you're making an
argument you're probably bumping up against this status quo concept okay?
So let's say, when I was very young I started in radio and it was a, it was a,
a public radio station, college radio station so they had to do fundraising.
So, [INAUDIBLE] lots of times, we had to go to the air, and do on air fundraising.
Well, I'm arguing for a change to the status quo when I'm asking for funds.
They currently haven't given us their money.
I would like them to change that, and give us their money.
So, so you're arguing for a change to the status quo.
Okay? They're not giving money now they should
be giving. If in as we've talked about at least once
or twice I've mentioned if you were advocating.
If you're persuasive speech is on encouraging people to go to farmers
market or to support their local food supply chain.
Then you would argue that people need to go to Farmers market.
The idea is that the status quo is currently not enough people are going.
and so more people need to go. So you're arguing for a change to the
status quo. Or certainly, any time you're at work and
there's a new policy that at issue or a problem that needs to be solved.
You're bumping up against what is a current state of affairs?
And do we maintain it or do we change it. So, in your persuasive speech for this
class, you're arguing somewhere around the status quo.
So you might say, you know some people want to change to the status quo but I
don't believe we should. So you're defending the status quo.
you know in other cases you would say, what we have right now is not good, we
need to change the status quo. Here in the US this has certainly
probably gained a lot of coverage globally is healthcare reform.
Healthcare Reform. Big issue in the US.
So up until recently the administration was arguing for a change to the status
quo. We didnt have what they saw as sufficient
Healthcare coverage laws. They argued for these healthcare coverage
laws. Those who wereopposed, mainly Republicans
in Congress were opposed to these changes.
And they said, no, we don't need that new healthcare law.
Or, those new healthcare laws will be more problems than they're solving.
So you've got for and against. For change.
Against change. And this arguing for and against change
gets us to the concept of burden of proof.
And burden of proof is, once again, very helpful in thinking through what sort of
evidence you're going to come up with or how you're going to structure your
argument. in the court system we formally identify
what thresholds are. What are the burdens of proof?
Certainly for U.S. courts Were always placing the burden of
proof on the prosecution. The person bringing the charge.
And you know in our common vernacular it is innocent until proven guilty.
That's a formal statement of burden of proof and of status quo.
You are innocent status quo unless that has formally been changed and a burden of
proof has been satisfied. The Latin that drives this is that the
burden of proof lies with those who declare, not those who deny.
So you can think in terms of this as varying levels of burden of proof.
And increasing thresholds. So, we've got, a certain burden of proof
for civil trials. another burden of proof, just for when,
maybe, we're thinking about mak-, police are trying to make an arrest.
And certainly, the highest, burden of proof that we reserve for criminal
trials. And that makes sense, right?
You, even though you might lose money in a civil trial, you're probably not
going to lose your freedom. So we place.
A higher burden of proof on those who are trying to, in essence, deny the freedom
of someone. Okay.
Now. They might deserve their freedom denied.
Maybe they committed a heinous crime. But, we say, that.
That burden of proof is reserved for someone who's going to be potentially put
in jail. So in civil court cases we would say, all
right, we formally state the burden of proof is that the prosecution must show a
preponderance of evidence. Okay.
This is sort of, the 51% rule. It's more likely true than it's not true.
Okay? So you've got burden of proof being, once
again, always with the prosecution. The prosecution has the burden.
But they just have to say that they have to prove.
To that audience. that the, you know, the defendent is more
likely guilty of this than not. 'Kay?
Beyond that, in some criminal some civil courts, we'll talk about clear and
convincing evidence. So, that's slightly higher than a
preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing.
Let's say we're thinking about when police are pulling somebody over and, and
you know at a traffic stop. Well even there we've got a couple of
different burdens of proof. We've got reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion, it has to be more than just a hunch...
Or, that person looks fishy you've got to have a reasonable suspicion.
We formally state h-, what type of suspicion it, it must satisfy.
Beyond that, we talk about probable cause.
Evidence will probably be found if you engage in arrest or do a search.
Then we get to criminal cases. Criminal cases are very standardized,
right? We say that, the, the prosecution must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a high bar.
Beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not beyond an unreasonable doubt.
that would be too high. Some people think that all sorts of
things. You can't satisfy all unreasonable doubt,
which is beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the highest threshold that we use
in court cases. Now argumentation doesn't have these
formal laws. No one's getting their passing the bar to
become an arguer. That's reserved just for that profession.
You're engaged in persuasion and argumentation so we don't have a hardened
fast rule. Typically though a useful way of thinking
about this is, he who asserts must prove. so if you are arguing for a change to the
status quo we would say you have the burden of proof.
If you're arguing for a change. If you're arguing against a change to the
status quo, then you probably have presumption.
You were there first. and the reason we do this is just like in
court cases. Making change typically costs stuff.
It costs time, it costs money, it costs intellectual effort.
And so you have to prove that the expenditure of that resource, time,
money, whatever, is worth it. If you're arguing for a change you have
to prove that the change is worth it. And, I'd like to just sort of end by
running this through an example. So, there's a a professor of
argumentation, Christopher Johnstone and he told the story.
He actually had an elected position in addition to being a teacher, a public
speaking teacher, professor of rhetoric, he had an elected position, and this is
at a small college town, and he tells the story of he was sitting on the board and
there was this husband and wife developer team, and they wanted...
To go into a residential neighborhood and build a, a tall building.
Not hugely tall, but it was above what the building code had set for that area.
Building code was probably like, you can only go 30 stories, and they wanted to go
in and build this five story building. And so he's sitting there and people
said, well, you know the, the neighbors were concerned that if they built this
building The. The property values of those houses would
go down. So.
so they, they. They come in front of the.
They come in front of the city council for a, you know, a,
An exception. So they can build a tall building.
The professor sitting on the city council, and he says, well, you know, why
they're worried that it's going to harm their property values.
Can you show that it won't harm their property values?
And a husband and wife team say, well, no we can't.
But can they show that it will harm their property values?
Professor says, they don't have to. You are the one arguing for change, you
are the one that if this change goes through and it in fact harms their
property value, are to blame. So they hadn't thought through burden of
proof. They had just said well, it's 50/50 one
way or the other. Maybe it will devastate their life
savings, maybe it won't. Come on, give it to us, it sounds fun...
No. Burden of proof means you have to think
through what are the potential consequences.
If you're arguing for a change, usually the burden of proof lies with you.
So knowing what the status quo is and how your argument stands in relationship to
it is very helpful. And so in the next lecture we're going to
look at some ideas For developing arguments around this status quo idea.