Final answer:
The speaker addresses counterclaims by identifying weak spots in the opposing arguments and responding to them. They use rhetorical elements and acknowledge and refute counterclaims with valid reasoning and sufficient evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The speaker in the speech addresses several counterclaims and responds to them by identifying weak spots in the opposing arguments and pointing them out. The speaker uses the opponent's language to show that they have closely read and understood their claim, but still find problems with it. For example, the speaker may highlight logical fallacies, distorted evidence, or exaggerated language used by the opponent to weaken their argument. By doing so, the speaker effectively refutes the counterclaims and strengthens their own viewpoint.
In terms of fallacious reasoning, the speaker may counteract bandwagon fallacies where the opponent uses appeal to popularity to support their argument. They may provide evidence or logical reasoning to show why popular opinion does not necessarily make a claim true. In terms of distorted or weak evidence, the speaker may identify instances where the opponent relies on anecdotal evidence or cherry-picks examples to support their claim, and then provide stronger, more comprehensive evidence to support their own viewpoint. Lastly, in terms of exaggerated language, the speaker may point out instances where the opponent uses overly emotional or provocative language to manipulate the reader's emotions, and then provide a more reasoned and balanced argument without relying on such language.
Overall, the speaker's argument can be evaluated as having valid reasoning and sufficient evidence to support their viewpoint. They effectively address and refute counterclaims, using strong evidence and sound reasoning to strengthen their own argument. Their use of rhetorical elements, like parallelism and repetition, helps to engage and persuade the reader. Furthermore, the speaker acknowledges counterclaims and shows fairness by considering opposing viewpoints, addressing them empathetically, and refuting them with strong evidence.