Week 13 Speech Workshop: Build the Argument, Then Test It Aloud

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This workshop is where the argument inside your persuasive speech gets built, tested, and said out loud. You map one main point the way Chapter 13 maps the running speech: a claim, evidence cited as who, what, and when, the warrant that links them, a qualifier, and a rebuttal. You check the point for the fallacies that break an argument's support and the ones that dodge or rig it, and you repair any sentence that slips. Then you run the rehearsal loop: two takes of the point for a listener, each measured in a delivery table, with one moment named to fix between them. Along the way you use a chatbot as a rehearsal coach and then check its work, because a chatbot often praises an argument it never heard, hands you a statistic with no page behind it, or labels a fallacy wrong.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: When you deliver one main point of your persuasive speech twice, can your listener repeat your claim and your evidence's who, what, and when, do they hear the warrant that links them, and does the fix you name after take 1 show up in take 2?

Workshop data: One main point of your own persuasive speech, mapped as an argument, checked for fallacies, and delivered in two takes of 60 to 90 seconds (student-generated)

Source: The data in this workshop is your own: one main point of the persuasive speech you will give, on a topic from the course's roster, mapped as claim, evidence, warrant, qualifier, and rebuttal; checked for fallacies; and delivered in two takes of 60 to 90 seconds to a listener, measured in the tables in Part 4. Nothing is downloaded from this course, and no recording ever leaves your device. If you have no point ready or cannot practice aloud this week, the fallback supplies illustrative take notes attributed to no one.

• Rows: 1 main point per student, mapped on the 7 rows of the argument map table, checked on the 4 rows of the fallacy check table, delivered in 2 takes measured on the 8 rows of the delivery table, and heard on the 5 rows of the listener checklist
• Columns: the argument map and fallacy check tables have the item and what you found; the delivery table and the listener checklist have the measure, take 1, and take 2
• Measures: the claim, evidence, warrant, qualifier, and rebuttal; the evidence's who, what, and when; the fallacy checks; the length of each take in seconds, the words spoken, words per minute, the filler words, fillers per minute, seconds of eye contact in a 40-second sample, deliberate pauses, and the one moment to fix

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach

Ways of working

• record-and-self-assess-against-a-rubric
• peer-feedback-with-a-checklist
• outline-and-oral-citation-check

Procedure

1. Choose one main point of your own persuasive speech, on a topic from the course's roster, and in your outline template fill in the argument map table in Part 4: your claim, your evidence written as a complete oral citation from a real source you found and checked, your warrant, a qualifier, and a rebuttal. Then run the look-it-up test on your evidence and your warrant. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: The argument map table holds five filled lines, the evidence line names who, what, and when before the evidence, and the look-it-up row says which line a listener could check at a source.
2. Fill in the fallacy check table: read your point once for the six fallacies that break support and once for the six that dodge or rig an argument, name the sentence most at risk, and rewrite it so it states only what your evidence shows. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: The fallacy check table names any fallacy found, or says none was found after both reads, and shows one rewritten sentence.
3. Do take 1: deliver the point for 60 to 90 seconds to a listener from a keyword card, glancing down and then looking up. You may record video on your own phone, record audio only, or speak with no recording while your listener times you with a stopwatch. Keep any recording on your own device. Your listener marks the take 1 column of the listener checklist. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: One complete take exists, its length in seconds is written down, the listener checklist is marked for take 1, and nothing has been uploaded or shared.
4. Fill in the take 1 column of the delivery table: count the words you said (from your recording, or by writing the take down right after), the filler words, and the deliberate pauses; time a 40-second sample of eye contact if you have video or your listener timed it; then work out words per minute and fillers per minute and write the one moment to fix. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: The take 1 column holds counts, the two per-minute figures with their divisions, and a moment a viewer could find, not a feeling.
5. Rehearsal coach step: in a new chat with one approved chatbot, describe your point, your map, and take 1 in words using your tables (never upload or link a recording) and ask for one specific, actionable suggestion that would make your warrant clearer to a skeptical listener. Write down its most concrete suggestion and the change you will make, in your own words. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: One suggestion is quoted, and the change you will make in take 2 is written in your own words and tied to a line of the map.
6. Do take 2 for the same listener, trying the take 1 fix and the coach suggestion. Fill in the take 2 column of the delivery table and have your listener mark the take 2 column of the checklist. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: Both columns of the delivery table and the listener checklist are complete, and the take 2 moment says whether the take 1 fix showed up.
7. AI-critique step: paste the prompt in Part 6 into the same chatbot below your description, check each answer against the checks listed there, and fill in the critique table. Or complete the equivalent route in Part 6 instead. Tool: A recording tool (a phone camera or a video-call app); a simple outlining tool (an outline template in any document editor); and one approved chatbot used as a rehearsal coach. Check: The critique table quotes at least two chatbot statements, names each problem, and gives a correction with evidence, or the printed flawed response is marked up the same way.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you do not have a main point of your persuasive speech ready this week, if no listener is available, or if speaking aloud is not possible for you right now.

Do the map, fallacy check, coach, and critique steps on the illustrative take notes below instead of your own point. Use the notes to fill in the delivery table and the listener checklist, work out the per-minute figures and the eye-contact share for both takes, and in analysis questions 2 to 4 say what you would change in your own speech. You submit the same items and earn the same credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Illustrative notes from two 75-second takes of one main point from a persuasive talk asking for covered bike parking, attributed to no one, measured on the same rows as your own tables.

Fallback model data

Item	Fallback take notes
The point and its map	Claim: the campus should build covered bike parking by the main entrance · evidence: the campus bike count, said with no who or when · warrant: riders choose parking that protects their bikes · qualifier: for the busiest entrance first · rebuttal: unless a nearby garage already has room
Fallacy check note	First draft line: everyone who rides wants it, so it must be right (bandwagon); rewritten: the riders I surveyed asked for it, and here is what the count shows
Take 1	75 seconds; 140 words spoken; 10 filler words; 18 seconds of eye contact in a 40-second sample; 3 deliberate pauses; rushed the warrant in one breath
Take 2	75 seconds; 125 words spoken; 5 filler words; 26 seconds of eye contact in a 40-second sample; 5 deliberate pauses; one pause before the warrant
Listener's note after take 1	Could repeat the claim but not who counted the bikes or when; did not hear why the count mattered
Your argument map, fallacy check, delivery table, and one moment to fix

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Map the point before you rehearse it, so your listener hears a claim, its proof, and the link between them.

Student scaffold table 1

Argument map	What your point says
Claim
Evidence, as a complete oral citation
Does the evidence name who, what, and when before the evidence? (yes, or what is missing)
Warrant (the principle that links the evidence to the claim)
Qualifier
Rebuttal
Look-it-up test: which line could a listener check at a source, and which is the link?

Check the point for fallacies so the argument that reaches your listener is one that holds.

Student scaffold table 2

Fallacy check	What you found
Support fallacies read for (hasty generalization, false cause, weak analogy, appeal to ignorance, false authority, bandwagon)
Dodge-or-rig fallacies read for (ad hominem, straw man, red herring, false dilemma, slippery slope, begging the question)
The sentence most at risk
Your rewrite of that sentence

Measure both takes the same way so a change between them is something you can point to.

Student scaffold table 3

Measure	Take 1	Take 2
Length of the take, in seconds
Words spoken
Words per minute (words ÷ minutes)
Filler words counted
Fillers per minute (fillers ÷ minutes)
Seconds of eye contact in a 40-second sample (if timed)
Deliberate pauses counted
The one moment to fix

Your listener marks this checklist after each take; it shows which parts of the argument reached them.

Student scaffold table 4

Listener check	Take 1	Take 2
I could repeat the claim after one hearing
I could repeat the evidence's who, what, and when
I heard the reason the evidence supports the claim
I heard a limit or a condition on the claim
I heard no attack on a person, no either-or, and no everyone-agrees line

Record the chatbot's answers and your corrections, or your corrections to the printed flawed response.

Student scaffold table 5

What the chatbot said (quoted)	The problem it shows	Your correction and its evidence

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. From your delivery table, divide each take's words by its minutes (seconds ÷ 60) to find words per minute, and divide each take's fillers by its minutes to find fillers per minute. Show all four divisions, then say in one sentence why neither rate is the correct one.
2. Which lines of your argument map reached your listener, and which did not? Use a listener-checklist mark as evidence for each.
3. Using the look-it-up test, explain which line of your map is the evidence and which is the warrant, and say whether your listener's mark on hearing the reason shows the warrant came through.
4. Name the fallacy your point was most at risk of, quote the sentence before and after your rewrite, and say whether your qualifier or rebuttal changed how your listener responded, using the checklist row on limits.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) One main point is not a whole persuasive speech: what could this drill not tell you about how your full argument holds up, and how could you find out? (b) Which sentence of your take 2 would a skeptical listener still push back on, and what backing or narrower claim would you add before the real speech?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I am rehearsing one main point of a persuasive speech for a public speaking class. I've described the point, its argument map, and my two takes above in words, with my tables; I have not shared any recording. Please do seven things. First, tell me what you think of my argument and my delivery. Second, give me one statistic with a source I can cite out loud to strengthen my evidence. Third, give me one famous line from a real speech about standing firm or arguing well, with the exact words, who said them, and when. Fourth, rewrite my warrant so it sounds more persuasive. Fifth, turn my argument map into an outline with Roman numerals and letters. Sixth, label any fallacy you find in my point. Seventh, tell me the one thing I should change in my next take.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often open with 'What a logical, compelling argument!' about a point they never heard, without naming a single line of your map or a row of your tables.
• Chatbots tell you to 'speak with more confidence' or 'connect with your audience' even though they never heard either take, and they name no sentence or second where it happened.
• Asked for a statistic, chatbots often hand over a precise-sounding percentage for your topic, stated as settled fact with no page behind it.
• Chatbots attach that figure to a real-sounding institute or 'a recent study' with no author, title, or date you can find, formatted like a complete oral citation.
• Asked for a famous line, chatbots often quote a well-known speech from memory and credit it to the wrong speaker or the wrong occasion, such as crediting a Kennedy line to Lincoln.
• Asked to make your warrant more persuasive, chatbots often hand back a polished slogan with 'must' and 'before it is too late', which erases your wording and adds false urgency instead of a principle.
• Asked to turn your argument map into an outline, chatbots often hang the evidence as a single subpoint A with no B, or lift the qualifier up to the level of the claim.

In 3–5 sentences, quote two things the chatbot said, name the problem each one shows, and write your correction with its evidence; then check its fallacy label against the course definition, and name one thing the chatbot got right and the part of your map or tables it was about.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this Speech Workshop. Instead of the chatbot steps, do two things. First, for the coach step, ask your listener for one specific suggestion that would make your warrant clearer to a skeptical listener, or reread your take 1 notes and write the one moment that hurt the take most; then answer it with one change in your own words and try it in take 2. Second, critique this flawed response, printed here in full and attributed to no one: "What a logical, compelling argument! Speak with more confidence and connect with your audience. Covered bike parking cuts bike theft by 40 percent, according to a recent study by a national cycling safety institute. For your opening, use the famous line from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: 'Let us never negotiate out of fear.' Here is your warrant, made more persuasive: 'Every responsible campus must protect its riders now, before it is too late.' Your point commits a hasty generalization, because you assume the parking will cause more riders to come. Here is your map as an outline: I. Build covered bike parking. A. The campus bike count." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (hollow praise, delivery feedback that names no moment, an unverified statistic, an invented source, a misattributed quotation, a rewrite that erases your voice and adds false urgency, a fallacy label that does not fit its definition, or an outline with a lone subpoint), cite the evidence from your tables, your map, or Chapter 13, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 7 and Objective 3) as the chatbot steps, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed response with your coach-step question and change, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed argument map table
• The completed fallacy check table
• The completed delivery table for take 1 and take 2
• The completed listener checklist
• The coach suggestion you acted on, quoted, with your change in your own words
• Written answers to the five analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed response

Deliverable:

A short Speech Workshop packet on one main point of your persuasive speech: the argument map table, the fallacy check table, the delivery table for two takes, the listener checklist, the coach suggestion you acted on in your own words, written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's response, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed response. No recording is submitted. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, spoken, or recorded form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Argument mapped and its evidence checked	The argument map table is complete: claim, evidence as a complete oral citation naming who, what, and when, warrant, qualifier, and rebuttal, and the look-it-up row tells the evidence from the warrant correctly.	The map is missing a part, the evidence lacks who, what, or when, or the warrant is written as a second piece of evidence.	No argument map table.
Fallacy check and repair	The fallacy check table records both reads, names any fallacy by its course definition or states none was found, and shows a rewritten sentence that claims only what the evidence shows.	Only one read is recorded, a fallacy is named without its definition fitting, or no rewrite appears.	No fallacy check.
Two takes measured in the delivery table	Both columns hold counts and seconds, words per minute and fillers per minute are shown as divisions, each take names a moment a viewer could find, and take 2 says whether the take 1 fix showed up.	One take is measured, the per-minute figures appear without their divisions, or a take names a feeling instead of a moment.	No take measured.
Coach feedback acted on in your own voice	One coach suggestion, or one listener suggestion on the equivalent route, is quoted and answered with a change in the student's own words that shows up in take 2.	A suggestion is quoted, but the change copies its wording or does not appear in take 2.	No suggestion appears, or a chatbot rewrite of the point is submitted as the student's own.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed response	On either route, at least two problems are quoted and corrected with evidence from the student's tables, map, or Chapter 13, every chatbot statistic, quotation, source, or fallacy label is checked, and one correct point is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, problems are named but corrected without evidence, or only one problem is caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.
Reflection on the limits of the drill	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit of a one-point, two-take drill or a sentence that still invites pushback, and a concrete way to check or fix it.	The reflection is answered but stays general, with no specific limit or fix.	No reflection appears.

Quality Gate

• Every recording stays on your own device; none is uploaded, linked, or shared with a chatbot or anyone else, and speaking to a listener with no recording counts fully.
• Your claim, warrant, and card are your own words, not a chatbot's rewrite, and both takes are delivered from the card rather than read or recited.
• Your evidence line is a complete oral citation of a real source you found and checked, and every fallacy example you write is invented and names no real public figure.
• Every count in the delivery table comes from your own take, every per-minute figure shows its division, and each take names a moment rather than a feeling.
• Any statistic, source, quotation, or fallacy label a chatbot supplies is checked against the original page or the course definition before you keep it, and the critique corrects at least two problems with evidence.