Weaponizing rhetoric (Advance) - Lucia Arce and Tin Puljić. MDA
Summary
TLDRThis transcript from a workshop emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in debates, focusing on how to effectively capture the audience's attention and emotions. It discusses the use of narratives, moral intuitions, and impactful language to strengthen arguments. The speaker advocates for strategic introductions and conclusions to convey the significance of a case, suggesting that personal experiences and human elements can make arguments more relatable and persuasive. The summary also touches on the power of language to influence perception and the need to frame arguments within a societal context.
Takeaways
- 🎙️ The importance of rhetoric in debates is emphasized, as it helps to capture the room's emotions and further one's case effectively.
- 📖 Style in debates is not just about sounding angry or speaking fast, but about using language to make content more understandable and persuasive.
- 🗣️ The use of narratives is crucial for a winning case, providing a clear theme and sense of importance that resonates with the audience.
- 🏆 A strong narrative can make a debater's argument more memorable and persuasive, especially in short discussions where clarity is key.
- 📊 The power of framing arguments with moral intuitions and societal values can make them more impactful and relatable to the audience.
- 🔑 The significance of introductions in setting the stage for the debate, immediately giving judges a clear understanding of the debater's stance and argument.
- 🔍 The effectiveness of using personal experiences or stories to humanize arguments, making them more tangible and emotionally resonant.
- 📝 The value of practicing debate speeches to refine introductions and conclusions, ensuring they are clear, impactful, and memorable.
- 🌟 The role of conclusions in reinforcing the debater's stance and leaving a lasting impression on the judges and audience.
- 🚫 The potential pitfalls of using biased language or personal anecdotes that may not apply universally, and the need to generalize these experiences effectively.
- 🔊 The impact of using strong, emotionally charged words to heighten the intensity and persuasiveness of arguments.
Q & A
What is the primary focus of the workshop mentioned in the transcript?
-The primary focus of the workshop is on the importance of rhetoric and style in debates, specifically how to use language effectively to capture the room's emotions and further one's case.
Why is the use of rhetoric considered important in debates according to the transcript?
-Rhetoric is considered important because it allows debaters to make their content more persuasive and understandable, not just by sounding proficient, but by strategically using language to advance their arguments.
What does the speaker suggest as a key element for a winning debate case?
-The speaker suggests that a clear narrative about what the team stands for and what their argument is, including the theme they are defending, is a key element for a winning debate case.
How can the use of moral intuitions and societal values enhance an argument in a debate?
-Using moral intuitions and societal values can enhance an argument by making it more relatable and persuasive, as it taps into the audience's pre-existing beliefs and values, making the argument more compelling.
What is the significance of having a clear and impactful introduction in a debate speech?
-A clear and impactful introduction is significant because it sets the stage for the judge's understanding of the case, providing an immediate sense of what the team stands for and why their argument is important.
Why is it beneficial to use personal experiences or stories when making an argument?
-Using personal experiences or stories can make an argument more relatable and emotionally engaging, helping judges visualize the impact of the argument and making it more memorable.
What is the role of conclusions in a debate speech, as discussed in the transcript?
-The role of conclusions in a debate speech is to reinforce the team's stance and to leave a lasting impression on the judges, summarizing the most important points and why they should remember the team's case.
How can the use of biased language affect the perception of a debater's argument?
-The use of biased language can negatively affect the perception of a debater's argument by making the argument seem less credible or by causing the audience to be less inclined to listen due to preconceived notions or biases.
What is the importance of using strong and impactful words when framing an argument?
-Using strong and impactful words can intensify the emotional response to an argument, making it more persuasive and memorable, and potentially influencing the audience's perception of the argument's severity or importance.
What is the speaker's view on the use of personal pronouns and direct address in debates?
-The speaker believes that using personal pronouns and direct address can make arguments more compelling by creating a sense of personal connection and relatability, making the audience more likely to engage with the argument.
How can debaters effectively use the final seconds of their speeches to their advantage?
-Debaters can use the final seconds of their speeches to reiterate their main points or to deliver a powerful conclusion, ensuring that the judges remember the key aspects of their case and the reasons why it is important.
Outlines
🗣️ The Power of Rhetoric in Debates
The speaker emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in debates, suggesting that it's not just about language proficiency but the strategic use of language to capture the room's emotions and further one's case. They discuss how the use of certain objectives and introductions can be more impactful than others, referencing Nelson Mandela as an example of an effective introduction. The focus is on using rhetoric to enhance the content of the argument, rather than just for style's sake, and the use of narratives to create a clear and winning case.
🏆 Crafting a Winning Narrative
This paragraph delves into the concept of narratives in debates, highlighting the significance of having a clear theme and argument that the team stands for. The speaker stresses the importance of making the narrative sound important and memorable to the judges, especially in short discussions. They use the example of pro-choice versus pro-life to illustrate how naming and framing arguments can influence perception and the outcome of a debate.
🎯 The Art of Argument Introduction
The speaker discusses the art of crafting argument introductions in debates, advocating for strategic openings that immediately convey the importance and direction of the case. They argue against generic or arbitrary introductions, suggesting that a well-crafted introduction can significantly impact how the case is perceived and remembered by the judges. The paragraph includes an exercise for the audience to practice creating impactful introductions for hypothetical debate cases.
💡 Utilizing Moral Intuitions in Debates
In this paragraph, the speaker explores the use of moral intuitions and societal values in debate arguments, suggesting that grounding arguments in widely recognized moral values can make them more persuasive. They provide an example related to universal basic income versus welfare, illustrating how to frame the argument around the concept of choice and individual autonomy, which are intuitively appealing principles.
🌟 Making Impactful Conclusions
The speaker advises on crafting conclusions in debates that are memorable and reinforce the team's stance. They propose using 'at the end of the day' statements to summarize the team's position and the importance of their arguments. The paragraph also suggests practicing by comparing introductions and conclusions from recorded speeches to improve clarity and impact.
👥 Humanizing Arguments with Personal Stories
The paragraph discusses the effectiveness of using personal stories to humanize arguments in debates. The speaker suggests that while personal anecdotes may not be universally applicable, they can help judges visualize the impact of the argument. They provide examples related to feminist movements and the inclusion of diverse characters in media, illustrating how these stories can make abstract concepts more relatable and compelling.
🔍 Addressing Bias and Enhancing Persuasion
The speaker addresses the issue of bias in debates, particularly against those who may sound less confident or have accents. They suggest strategies for overcoming this bias, such as pointing out the speaker's personal experience and expertise, and using emotionally charged language to enhance the persuasiveness of the arguments. The paragraph encourages debaters to be aware of and counteract potential biases to ensure their arguments are given due consideration.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Rhetoric
💡Narrative
💡Moral Intuitions
💡Introduction
💡Argument
💡Style
💡Dignity
💡Universal Basic Income
💡Choice
💡Emotion
💡Language Proficiency
💡Human Impact
💡Bias
💡Economic Impact
Highlights
The importance of rhetoric in debates is emphasized, suggesting it's not just about language proficiency but how effectively one uses language to capture emotions and advance arguments.
The use of rhetoric is discussed as a tool to enhance the understanding of one's content, rather than just for stylistic purposes.
The concept of narratives in debates is introduced, highlighting the need for a clear and impactful story that defines a team's stance and argument.
The significance of introducing moral intuitions and societal values into arguments to make them more relatable and persuasive is explained.
The strategic use of introductions in debates is discussed, emphasizing the need to immediately convey the importance and direction of the case.
The power of personal stories in debates is highlighted as a means to humanize arguments and make them more impactful.
The importance of conclusions in debates is underscored, suggesting they should reinforce the team's stance and the importance of their case.
The use of personal experience to add credibility to arguments is discussed, making them more relatable and convincing.
The impact of language and accent on the perception of arguments in debates is addressed, advocating for the recognition of diverse perspectives.
The strategic use of emotionally charged words is explored as a method to heighten the impact of arguments.
The concept of 'choice' as a central theme in debates is introduced, linking it to the right to a dignified life.
The framing of debates around moral values such as the right to happiness and self-actualization is discussed.
The idea of using clear and concise language in introductions to set the stage for the debate is highlighted.
The practice of recording and analyzing one's own debate speeches is suggested as a method for improvement.
The use of human elements in arguments to illustrate the impact on individuals is explored, making abstract concepts more tangible.
The importance of practicing the delivery of introductions and conclusions to make them more memorable and impactful is emphasized.
The strategic use of personal anecdotes to justify broader arguments and connect with the audience on a deeper level is discussed.
The potential for personal experience to add weight to arguments, making them seem more authoritative and credible.
Transcripts
so we're gonna do what we like you're
entering the reason what I think is some
really important workshop are thinking
about bonds level because like in many
cases is defined by how well you sound
or out well you able to capture the room
capture that emotions of the argument
capturing language and not in a way that
I think is determined by your language
proficiency but rather in how you use
certain objectives like do you say bad
to loose a terrific
do you use an introduction that is
useful in furthering your case rather
than just like something Nelson Mandela
or whatever for no reason
the second reason is because I think
that when we talk about style we usually
just mean things like do you sound
really angry doing the base or if you
style when I come and click there and
explaining or do you slow down a little
bit but they don't really fast and other
those things are related to style I
think of a real reason why you want to
rhetoric it's because it allows you to
make you content better so we're not
gonna talk necessarily about how to
style the vectors for the sake of
something that are more understandable
but rather a way to actively use
rhetoric as a way to further your own
content so I do think the Frederick's
can be quite useful but I think that it
is quite useful because it allows your
content to get to the next level so
that's why I think that is quite that
sort of useful thing to have in debates
so I wanna have let's talk about the
narratives and how to further and then
we're going to talk about I think that
one of the best ways to have a winning
case is to have a clear narrative about
what your team stands for and what your
argument is like what is the thing that
you theme is defending and not just that
we're also giving a sense of importance
to think that you're trying to push
under further in debates when an
especially notification under 15-minute
discussions it's very difficult
sometimes for judges to what team that
does everything kind of right and ask
for argument and the
Oh fine but it's hard for them for
judges to be like I think that this team
has won against teams that have maybe
just one or two arguments so remember
your arguments by the passwords and my
happens that's very important to make
your headline sound important I think a
very good example of this is in debates
where we debate about the right choice
for example how you bring the white
[Music]
innocency to fulfill their interest you
get to be more happy because we can
follow your own image of what you want
to be - wanna support but if you can
bring them differently
if you say look the only way in life in
which I can be happy is to follow my own
interests in my image and ask how I want
to be that means I do not have the right
to Jesus every student formula I am
denying the achievement of my future
this is the dignity of my life is
dependent on my ability to choose how I
want what you have is that the question
of a debate about the right of choice is
a question of the right to a dignified
life because without a choice
you do not have the ability to choose
for yourself therefore your picture it
will become it somebody else's extension
somebody else will not yours at this you
are making an argument about whether
choice with an equal level of analysis
but the truck remembers your argument as
speak about the right to life which
intuitively sounds far more persuasive
and I think there's a real life example
is if people can be unfortunately
there's a reason why the left is very
clumsy and that is take a look at that
they call the companies pro-choice
versus pro-life getting the name
yourself as pro-life is a very useful
because they didn't print they call me a
person as being about these people say
they're pro-choice they want you to be
able to choose about somebody else's
life how do you believe is legitimate
but somebody else has a full agency over
whether life exists around we are grown
like you're not they can make other
people's life as the fundamental value
here and when you turn to present a
clutch doesn't know much about the first
thing that they hear if that's the
headline
which people
we good intuitively something they want
to support it they want to stand on
they're far more likely to listen to you
and know that the best drivers in the
world have certain internalizes their
concentration especially so when I think
are therefore most important ways in
which you can weaponize rhetoric so one
of them is I think that not just making
the arguments but making the argument
using moral intuitions and important
moral values that we in society are
familiar with so don't just say that we
improve the quality of life of people be
like this affects individuals right to
choice right to happiness things that we
intuitively already a bunch of very
powerful while you do so i think thats
hanging into those moral intuition
people already have it's quite a clever
way to frame it I think given to been
treated really well so I think that's
one of the ways that people will just
like run content from the best second so
they will immediately be like three
points into a speech really quick a
medium to jump in already men and I
think that works fine but that just
makes you the kind of things that I
described earlier it makes you the theme
that kind of girls argument might not
seem reasonably well but there's no
sense of importance or where your case
is going I think that introduction is
between really really strategic
introductions are the best way to eat
mmediately give judges up this is what
I'm stopping for because that's I think
I'm going to remember you by by the best
words that you say so I think that the
way that you need to utilize
introductions is again not by random
code my tongue saying something that
maybe it sounds pretty it means to be a
a picture of what your case is and why
you think is important so I hope that I
useful way to think about it it's like
given that I am learning an argument
about the importance of choice how do I
explain that in a sentence what it is
quietly mutters I'll try to make it
sound like important precisely using
those moral intuitions so for example
yeah so for example I'm gonna just give
you guys an example and ask you a really
good point with arguments that you would
run into in a debate and then how you
would use an introduction to really
quickly not analogous with arguments no
more than 30 seconds just explain to me
what your cases and give me a sense of
importance to it so like I read this
house believes yeah so a very common one
believe we should give instead of
welfare a universal basic income to
people importing so let's say we are on
government we say that we should give
them a universal basic income rather
than welfare really quickly like think
of argument when you might say
[Music]
[Music]
other than some economics probably need
at least three meeting away that look
just because I just because we today
live in the world you are define by both
how you work doesn't mean that that
should be the narrative that should
exist if someone is able to self
actualize without working you should be
he should not be denied the right to
life
[Music]
so fundamentally both of those are about
choice right here that individuals
regardless of their circumstances know
their circumstances better on the
government and they're better people to
make their lives better and get out of
poverty if you allow them the choice
that rich people already have to get out
of those circumstances to use the money
in a way that is useful to them so I
think that's starting with that sort of
very intuitive as an individual I knew
my own circumstances better than anyone
in the government everywhere
I know what I need to get out of poverty
and therefore giving me well there it is
unhelpful to me achieving that goal we
think that by giving individual ceremony
do you empower them to make decisions
for themselves that will improve their
lives so I think that that allows you to
really quickly in like a sentence say
what is that word choice the idea that
individuals know the circumstances best
and that therefore they're the ones best
place to make those decisions for
immediately judges already know what
their kids all about and in a missed
I'm comedian Joey died I think o g1 I
think mother principle of choice
individuals but I think for you but the
problem is if you do it as all this you
essentially wasting time to hear much
recommended the judgment here White's
important at the beginning of your
speech so that you cannot do this you're
already wasting time on this but they
didn't change the way so one way was to
say well the CSS the other was to say
first came to prove the principal point
of why we go to have choice say we're
going to move is to practically more
efficient because this one people get
buying how to use their money they start
miss an argument at the judge can
reasonably concluded to go to mother but
from that there is no emotional response
there is no idea why the support I think
there was a mention of example that we
always got it means is mostly less
violence and people always introduction
in every single but the point is not
only the way to break a sentence when he
starts with the end of the war of the
world women an occasion should call
alternatives that first sentence is
already the Braverman he's already
telling you what I am going to prove is
that regardless of all of these parts
regardless of what
as annoying when you don't have an
alternative another point where you are
forced in that position in his words
shuffle you are legitimate in reality
you're not wasting time here because
he's already delivering content
he's already telling it in his first
sentence eight years an alternative in
his second only talking about the
shackling stuff instead of you these
people are forced in terms of
alternative universe by someone you're
legitimate to supplement his entire case
permeated by that recipe and then would
be waived as a judge you say okay they
very clearly state that their stance was
the condition of no alternatives is once
make this legitimate therefore
opposition half moon it's a critical
target you get to celebrate your Senate
burden and this in a way in the universe
loop voting and I think that's what you
can aspire towards and I'm joining
watching to debase is a way for you guys
to get a half of what goodies are
supposed but also more to be something
that you do want to very carefully think
about each one that they're saying so I
think I don't think to get into the
practice of thinking what is my case on
what is the best way in which I can
express what my cases why my case
numbers in like a sentence or two how
can I give up
practicing it is pretty reusable because
of things that if you just say the
arguments there's no solution of expose
and Noreen says to be poured out why do
I care 17 facts that you're giving me so
I think they need to be purchased some
very useful way I also think that
conclusions in the same way but the
conclusion is always be like because
it's like the other points each
important out of time I think I'd like
to deliver my last 45 seconds of
anonymous what do I do now I think it's
really useful to have like upset
conclusions that you just I always like
that you know ways I'm very boring for
watching conclusions but I always
include with at the end of the day and
then the way that I do it is we prefer
to have X versus Y so it's like I would
rather live in a world where the poor
come on meaningful way to opt out of the
systems of oppression that they live
under rather than the world or we cling
to what is the best women's work but
really if you really look at
alternatives so I work when I think my
competition I am still saying this is
what we stand for and visit what we
prepare it we're willing to trade it off
against what the opposition is going to
say so if I end up also thinking about
conclusions in the same way like a star
equals like
to establish a cradle or using them in a
sentence say what your case is the most
important thing of a debate like the
most important people to make on the
thing that judges you need to remember
it's whatever you think is the most
memorable part of your speech but I
think that I can using those best
seconds on those not seconds which are
the things which others are going to
remember you keep most by it's really
really really great
I think the way you can practice this to
this movie which promise p.m. speeches
so very open to people I Serbian speech
is it okay make a motion for every case
give a speech record your speech and
then compare it to another street
somebody else be able to record is
anything to do with interest and give me
a sign the attendance is 15 inches take
30 second general arguments and make an
introduction final recording planning
and watch how these speakers made the
introduction and then if I had elected
not to work or work what did they
deliver their introduction what did you
deliver do you think that they were more
clear than you in conveying other
flavors do you think they were more
clear than in conveying what their words
are in the other conspirators are you
people take that much time you can
visually substituted 15 minutes of prep
time you would have come to the PSP
within 15 minutes to literally analyze
the two introductions and see what was
different consumer fashion Fiat which in
the debate they try to repair the
perfectly why you changed operation
modules remove
fifteen seconds I think the principle
here is similar
so the way that you achieve that you
never want to make an argument and give
like a personal example because inside
yeah without happened to you or to your
sister it doesn't apply to everyone I
think that's true but I only think that
it's or I do think that human aspect to
your impacts is really useful so when
you're talking about like like for
example in the previous workshop and
also with intermediates we were talking
about how for example things are good
for women who are housewives but bad for
women don't want to have children at all
and I think that in those cases it's
quite useful actually a human element
because it helped judges visualize what
your impact of helping women who don't
have options looks like and I think of
using that you need to do things so
fastly its tell my story so we like for
women who are like whatever they argue
with this for women who don't want to be
pressed to do to do the things on the
pager can prescribe them to move who
don't want to be housewives want to go
to university who don't want
or for those women it becomes incredibly
difficult to ever get the things that
they want when the feminist movement is
not protecting them but rather
supporting the other side I think the
bear you draw a story right and you are
explaining what happens to an individual
and how it makes your life worth rather
than just say in very general terms that
it does and if you do that I do think
that after that you need to be like and
this applies to women everywhere or this
applies to women who want anything that
goes against a major key when you're
explaining the human impact and then
giving her enough like explaining how
that's human impact does it justify to
that person for applying to everybody
like a demonic individual and
representation like having gay
characters in between movies or having
gay characters be like very prominent in
media is like imagine another child
growing up the incredible difference
that seem someone who looks like you
feel like you would like the same gender
that you can have in a world where
everyone tells you that what you like is
wrong and where you never see anyone who
looks like you or who behaves like you
I've every feel different and that
happened to every single child who grows
up in more conservative society there's
no gay individuals around them to tell
them that their existence is funded so
that I am doing this sort of like
individual story here is what happens
human person and then I am doing this
applies to everyone and I think that
that can be quite useful in debates
where it sometimes is like kind of
difficult to conceptualize the human
impact so explaining the human impact
and then after explaining how it gets
better
helps judges visualize your impact and
help them feel like your argument is
important economic side this one is
where you kind of implied that your
personal experience things you've all
sorted it's not safe or I went to
political science and decided that's why
why on earth but that's say for example
if you're debating about conservation in
a certain country you can't start an
argument by saying look here's the
Balkans we understand interventionist
the other step reasons why they are not
there these are these reasons then
immediately you some liberal funny the
judge more inclined to listen to you
because there isn't a miracle Geneva 2
you see I experienced this I know how
this went through and it's far easier
for you to push arguments from your own
personal comments so these reasons I
gave to you look it's exactly what
happened I made about me this Lobby out
in 99 in the years and then your example
also becomes
because you seem to be speaking from on
a personal perspective it is like
correctly that you're still making the
general argument however you are
constructing an image of yourself in
which the reasons you are presenting a
more credible because you become God
within yourself person the same thing
isn't even a supplies are quite squishy
arguments its ability colony human
emotionality so when you're trying to
make an argument of how someone will
feel it was about regretting the norm
that forgiveness is a virtue and we were
running argument about that was very
important to be able to be angry at
someone to December as motivation to
December as for amendment and it's very
hard to way that because husband won't
fly you feeling angry and this and he
said was look we know this sounds fishy
but we also go to experiences we know
that all of you have had things issue
record life with all the incarnations
are hard to deal with and we all know
that sometimes it was very useful for
you to be able to say let the person
off I'm gonna show the thing wrong
and that this was the way in which you
like to resolve those negative thoughts
on which to reject them is through the
voluntary and at that point the judge
because most people didn't do this and I
tell me in your everyday life do realize
although it's hard to quantify debaters
it means something to you every day
really something that we do is every day
and you start incidentally so how corny
you can literally say look we know you
experienced this we know this happened
to you anything is your problem there
are a lot of people
[Music]
because it like whenever I get out I'm
gonna Mexican let me talk to you about
the war on drugs and then like where it
tries to respawn it's just by the
awkward position doesn't the one that
looks like I guess she must know what
you're talking about right I wasn't very
hard I didn't want anything about
interventions precisely because of that
right because I haven't had one in like
two hundred years and I think that you
can use up for literally anything and it
doesn't just have to be something that I
can mean to your country but rather you
can use up with like any particular
policies you can be like this has
happened
introducing the bucket or like us a
woman for like a person who doesn't
speak English as a first language I
think it's a pretty useful what to draw
on like yeah but one of these I think
having a missile you need to bring it
down to a human
some people in the final and individuals
were listening so I think is pointing
out biased language is my personal
perspective one of the greatest problems
and contemporary community is the fact
that there is a huge robot especially
you have an accent especially if you
stop if you sound less confident because
you're stubborn because you can't find
the word judges especially media Johnson
already charges are less likely to like
give you importance are less likely to
consider you because they think that you
know less about the ways I think it's
very useful to point out the fact that
you are yourself and still the human
analysis so we did this all the time for
saying things like I know that we they
are may sound better but our case is
doing more that's true in the same in
the semifinals and I like is Israel same
things like look we not read beyond this
America we know the economics make
judges consider your case twice because
they feel bad about who may be listening
to a team more because radio because
nobody does this on purpose
notice the high 80s of people I wanna be
able to go through without a road rage
love this
but things are costly and then we call
the nominate they are self equation - uh
Berkeley MIT genes were speakers simply
because they sound in a different way
because health impacts
so they point out that Alice Rivlin is
permanent file
and like jokes on that I mean we spend
eternity in his UBC pilot said oh I'm
going on two more years apart my gaze
back watch over their flock allowed me
this something that's captivated with
your is incalculable to the judges and
will give you more attention as a team
especially means that you listen to me I
mean will likely think might you feel
partner is more persuasive if it's
argument that we need only Turner's are
like maybe so weaponize this every I
think it's very useful in the other
thing that I think is also quite good is
to change that was certain words that
you use to impact arguments or to
analyze arguments I think that it is
quite different to say that something is
bad time to say that something is
horrific or to say that something
is terrible so trying to change the
words that you use I like it's still
just a word in a sentence but I think
that makes a fight a different impact
and I think I'm getting used to our life
at least the way that I did it cuz I
used to speed up is it because all the
time and I think they're just changing
that to different words and quite
literally after your speech I found I
found that I did I think you just need
to get used to using certain words as
well this is going to destroy economy
and ravaged nations but I think the new
can use those words in many other IR
emotions right we're in many other
economics motions that you might be
encountered so I think that just
changing the like this is going to be
bad for the economy
so this is going to destroy economies
and can't quite literally change the way
that you impact is perceive particularly
winter days are way more likely to
impact something kind of bad they're
like people
perhaps Bloods
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
浏览更多相关视频
Analytical Exposition Text (Social function, structure of text, language features, task)
5 TIPS for Including FICTIONAL Examples in Your Arguments
telc Deutsch C1 Hochschule | schriftlicher Ausdruck | Hauptteil, Schluss | Deutsch lernen
Weighing and Evaluating Arguments by Team Singapore, Tajei
ENGLISH SPEECH | MOHAMMED QAHTANI: The Power Of Words (English Subtitles)
The psychology of persuasion, as told by an Ivy League professor | Jonah Berger for Big Think+
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)