⑴ 劝说口语交际
我选的是（爸爸烟瘾很大，妈妈多次劝爸爸戒烟，可他就是不听）
我的爸爸经常在家里吞云吐雾，我们全家都很不高兴，所以我就想劝爸爸戒烟。
我苦思冥想了一个晚上，终于想出了三套劝说方案。我想：这三套方案对付爸爸还不是三个手指拿田螺——十拿九稳吗？
第二天，我翻出了我搜集到有关吸烟对人体危害的资料，这就是我的A计划：说吸烟的危害。我说：“爸爸，我这两天发现你这两天有点像龙。”“是吗？那很好，我喜欢龙。”爸爸说。我说：“不是，我是说你吸烟多了。您不知道吧？吸一根烟，就可以减少一个小时的寿命。”“龙行去、虎行风，没有烟云的龙还有什么威风。”我看爸爸不听我劝说，有点生气说：“好吧，既然你不听我的，您不信连呼噜带喘的龙有什么威风”。“好！好！好！我听你的，不就是戒烟吗？我一定办到。”我那时候很高兴。
好日子不是长久的，一个星期后，爸爸又吸开烟了，我的A计划也失败了。
看来我得使出我的B计划：爸爸的缺点。我的爸爸别的缺点没有，就一个缺点——抠门。今天爸爸又吸烟了，我问爸爸：“爸爸你又抽烟了吧！”“唔”“如果你还吸烟，我想让你答应我一个条件。”“什么条件？”“你得先答应我，现在我们班的同学都有洋娃娃，就我没有，你得给我买一个。”“不就是一个洋娃娃，吗？我给你买。”“我还没有说完呢，如果你还吸烟的话就得给我买一个100块钱的洋娃娃，如果你不吸烟的话就给我买10块的洋娃娃。这中间可差一个0，您可得想清楚呀！爸爸说：“我想一想，明天告诉你。”
第二天，爸爸说：“我给你买10块的。”我说：“您可不要反悔呀！”“行。”我可是一举两得。一是我让爸爸戒烟，二是我有了一辆洋娃娃，我可是火爆玉米——开心啊！
可是老天怎么也不帮我，一个月后，我发现爸爸又在外面吸烟了，可真让我伤心呀！
我必须使出了我的必杀绝技C计划：吸烟对别人的危害，我知道爸爸是最爱我的。爸爸今天又吸烟了，我过去假装咳嗽起来。爸爸问：“女儿你怎么了。”我说：“我能怎么了，闻到烟味受不了？”爸爸不解的说：“我吸烟怎么碍你的事了？”“问题可大了，你一吸烟，我闻见烟味就咳嗽，而且肺疼，可难受了。因为烟里有很多有毒物质。人家科学家说了，吸烟等于吸毒。光您吸毒罢了，还捎上我，我还是小孩子。”爸爸坚定的说：“我没想到还会伤害你，既然这样，那我以后再也不吸烟了。”听了这句话，我心里太高兴了。
爸爸是个说话算话的人，从那以后就没有吸过烟，我的心里比得到一个洋娃娃还高兴!
⑵ 劝说口语交际250字
寒假里的一天，小明和小刚约好在草堆里面玩捉迷藏的游戏。
内于是，小刚先用手容把眼睛遮起来，小明去躲起来，过了一会儿，小刚开始找小明，小明等了好久也没有看到小刚找来，就想起了兜里还有一个烟火没有放掉，他想，反正要等小刚找来，干脆先在这里玩一会烟火吧！说干就干，他拿出烟火，正准备点火的时候，小刚找来了，小刚看到点火的小明，连忙喊住了小明并劝阻道，小明，你不能在这里放烟火，要放到别的地方放，因为这里四周全部是草堆，放烟火会很危险，而且会发生火灾，所以后果会不堪设想。
小明听了小刚的话，觉得很有道理，连忙收起了烟火，还很诚恳的对小刚说了好几声，谢谢，谢谢……下次我一定注意。然后，两个人高高兴兴的到别的地方去玩了。
⑶ 劝说 口语交际
英语中劝说别人的常用英语口语交际的句子。
1. If you want my advice, I don't think you should go.
依我看，你不应该去。
2. I suggest that you tear up the letter and start over again.
我建议你把这信撕掉重写。
3. It's only a suggestion, and you can do what you please.
这只是一个建议，你可以按你的意思做。
4. Let me give you a little fatherly advice.
我给你一些长辈的忠告。
5. If you don't like it, I wish you would say so.
如果你不喜欢它，我希望你直说。
6. Please don't take offense. I only wanted to tell you what I think.
请不要不高兴，我只是对你直说了我的想法。
7. In my opinion, the house isn't worth the price they’re asking.
依我看，这房子不值他们喊得价。
8. My feeling is that you ought to stay home tonight.
我感觉今晚你应该待在家中。
9. It's none of my business, but I think you ought to work harder.
虽然与我无关，我还是认为你应该努力工作。
10. In general, my reaction is favorable.
总体来说，我感觉不错。
716. If you don't take my advice, you'll be sorry.
如果你不听我的劝告，你会后悔的。
717. I've always tried not to interfere in your affairs.
我总是不想打扰你。
718. I'm old enough to make up my own mind.
我能自己做主了。
719. Thanks for the advice, but this is something I have to figure out myself.
多谢你的劝告，但有些事我必须自己解决。
720. He won't pay attention to anybody. You're just wasting your breath.
他对任何人都漠不关心，你是在白费精力。
⑷ 口语交际:劝说
从劝说的方法着手预习:
劝说技巧归纳
1．直言劝导，有理有据
2．直话曲说，借例言理
3．巧妙引申，归结谬论
4.因势利导，或顺耳忠言或激将
附劝说小故事
1. 直言劝导，有理有据。
某班，有同学丢了一支钢笔，老师召集全班开会。
他说：“同学们把班级和谐与幸福看作大家共同利益，个别同学把幸福看作个人私欲的满足，……小偷偷了别人的东西，被恐惧心理折磨得吃不香，睡不着，整天提心吊胆，精神上受到永无休止的折磨。拿了这支钢笔的人，每天不也受到同样的精神折磨吗？”
这天放学，一个学生主动找到了老师……
2.直话曲说，借例言理。
明朝宰相张居正为了让儿子名列榜首，策划让前来会试的临川才子汤显祖第二名，列在儿子之后以抬高儿子身价。于是就派堂弟张居直前去见汤显祖。
汤显祖讥讽道：“宰相为侄辈在科场中通关节者，我只知道南宋秦桧干过这种丑事，他要主考官取其孙为第一名，但主考官却将第一名判给了陆游，秦桧是个奸臣，营私舞弊不足为奇，张宰相乃当代名臣，断断乎不会出此下策吧？”
3. 巧妙引申，归结谬误。
相传明朝初年，有一天，告老还乡的李尚书接到朱元璋的圣旨，要他上贡公鸡蛋，原来李尚书得罪不少人，他们在朱元璋面前搬弄是非，说李家的公鸡会下蛋。李尚书非常着急，他的门生解缙说：“恩师莫急，我能劝说皇上收回成命。”李尚书无法，只能让他前往。
解缙：臣代李尚书献公鸡蛋
朱元璋：李尚书为何不亲自来觐见
解缙：李尚书在家坐月子。
朱元璋：胡说！男人怎么会生孩子!
解缙：既然男人不会生孩子，那么公鸡又怎么能下蛋呢？
朱元璋一时语塞，继而一笑了之。
4. 因势利导，或顺意而言或激将。
战国时，齐景公发现后花园几只珍贵的鸟飞了，非常恼火，命卫士把主管鸟的烛邹推下去斩了。
站在一旁的晏子指着烛邹说：“烛邹，你有三大罪状，知道吗？你为我们国君管鸟，却让鸟让飞走了，这是第一条罪状；我们的国君是个仁慈的君主，你使国君为鸟而杀人，还是第二条罪状；如果这事传出去，天下人一定会指责我们的国君看重鸟而轻视人，这是第三条罪状。”
晏子的话音刚落，齐景公马上说：“先生的话我领会了，放了烛邹吧。”
⑸ 劝说口语交际
去年我家搬来了一位新的邻居，他家有一位大哥哥，长的眉清目秀，但是我却发现他非常爱玩电子游戏，只要每天放学一回家，他就放下书包去玩电子游戏了，而界一玩就是几个小时，作业也不做。所以，邻居家的大哥哥，我想对你说：
你看一看，多少儿童因为沉迷于网络游戏，学习一落千丈。有人因为没有钱去上网，而去偷去抢，最后走上了犯罪的道路。哥哥，如果你不理会我对你的劝告，那么他们的现在就一定会是你的未来。
上次，我在报纸上看到，有好几个未成年人因为沉迷于电子游戏而视力越来越下降，还有几个真的想我说的一样，像一个瞎子了。 网络就像一张蜘蛛网，一旦上瘾它就会捆住你的手脚、束缚心灵；网络就像一种毒品，一旦上瘾，就无法摆脱它。你是那么迷恋网络游戏，所以，邻居家的大哥哥，我衷心的劝你一句，不要在沉迷于电子游戏中了，这样的话你就真的会像我说的的 那样，视力慢慢下降，成绩慢慢退步的。我不希望你会变成那样。
哥哥，请你觉悟吧!摆脱网络游戏的困扰，走向光明的世界！如果你要上网，就应该光明正大的玩，自己不用偷偷摸摸的，家长也放心你！
哥哥，我衷心的希望你能摆脱网络游戏的迷惑，使自己的成绩更上一层楼；成为品学兼优的好学生！
⑹ 口语交际——劝说
怎样劝说别人才有效
在日常生活中，人们常常遇到这样一种情景：你在与别人争论某个问题，分明自己的观点是正确的，但就是不能说服对方，有时还会被对方“驳”得哑口无言。这是什么原因呢？
心理学家认为，要争取别人赞同自己的观点，光是观点正确还不够，还要掌握微妙的交往技术。心理学家经过研究，提出了许多增强说服力的方法，其中最基本的有六种。
1.利用“居家优势”
邻居家的一棵大树盘根错节，枝叶茂盛，遮住了你家后园菜地的阳光，你想与他商量一下这个问题，是应该到他家去呢，还是请他到你家来？
心理学家拉尔夫•泰勒等人曾经按支配能力（即影响别人的能力），把一群大学生分成上、中、下三等，然后各取一等组成一个小组，让他们讨论大学十个预算削减计划中哪一个最好。一半的小组在支配能力高的学生寝室里，一半在支配能力低的学生寝室里。泰勒发现，讨论的结果总是按照寝室主人的意见行事，即使主人是低支配力的学生。
由此可见，一个人在自己或自己熟悉的环境中比在别人的环境中更有说服力，在日常生活中应充分利用居家优势，如果不能在自己家中或办公室里讨论事情，也应尽量争取在中性环境中进行，这样对方也没有居家优势。
2.修饰仪表
你想上级在申请书上签字，你是不顾麻烦，精心修饰一下仪表呢，还是相信别人会听其言而不观其貌？
我们通常认为，自己受到别人的言谈比受到别人的外表的影响要大得多，其实并不尽然。我们会不自觉地以衣冠取人。有人通过实验证明，穿着打扮不同的人，寻求路人的帮助，那些仪表堂堂、有吸引力的人要比那些不修边幅的人有更多的成功可能。
3.使自己等同于对方
你试图鼓动一伙青年去清扫某块地方，而他们却情愿到别的地方去，你怎样引起他们的兴趣呢？
许多研究者发现，如果你试图改变某人的个人爱好，你越是使自己等同于他，你就越具有说服力。例如，一个优秀的推销员总是使自己的声调、音量、节奏与顾客相称。甚至身体姿势、呼吸等也无意识地与顾客一致。这是因为人类具有相信“自己人”的倾向。正如心理学家哈斯所说的：“一个造酒厂的老板可以告诉你为什么一种啤酒比另一种好，但你的朋友，不管是知识渊博的，还是学识疏浅的，却可能对你选择哪一种啤酒具有更大的影响。”
4.反映对方的感受
你准备拜访隔壁新搬来的一对夫妇，请他们为社区的某项工程募捐，用哪种方法最好呢？
平庸的劝说者是开门见山提出要求，结果发生争执，陷入僵局；而优秀的劝说者则首先建立信任和同情的气氛。如果主人为某事烦恼，你就说：“我理解你的心情，要是我，我也会这样。”这样就显示了对别人感情的尊重。以后谈话时，对方也会加以重视。
当然，优秀劝说者也不总是一帆风顺的。他也会遭到别人的反对。这时老练的劝说者往往会重新陈述对方的意见，承认它具有优点，然后才指出自己的意见更好，更全面。研究证明，在下结论前，呈示双方的观点，要比只讲自己的观点更有说服力。
5.提出有力的证据
你准备参加某次决策会议，为一项不为大家重视的事业争取更大的一笔钱款，什么样的证据最有说服力呢？
如果向听众提供可靠的资料而不是个人的看法，你就会增加说服力。但要记住，听众受到证据的影响，也相同程度地受到证据来源的影响。在一项实验中，让两组被试听到关于没有处方是否可以卖抗阻胺片的争论，然后告诉一组被试说可以卖的证据来自《新英格兰生理和医学月刊》（这是虚构的），另一组则被告知证据来自一家流行画报。结果发现，第一组比第二组有更多的人赞成，没有处方也可以卖抗阻胺片。因此，引用权威更能消除听众的先入之见。
6.运用具体情节和事例
你刊登广告，推销某种药品，是把药品的成分、功能、用法详细介绍一番好呢？还是介绍某个患者使用后如何迅速痊愈的事例好呢？
优秀的劝说者都清楚地知道这样一点：个别具体化的事例和经验比概括的论证和一般原则更有说服力。因此，你要多卖掉药品，你就应酌情使用后面一种方法。在日常生活中，你要说服别人，你就应旁证博引，使用具体的例子，而不一味空洞说教。
总之，说服别人，赢得赞同的能力并不是神秘的天赋，通过学习一些社会交往技能（当然首先要观点正确），我们就可以增强自己言谈的说服力。为了坚信这一点，你不妨试一试。
⑺ 口语交际 劝说例文
How to convince others by skillfully using twisted logic
A Special Report
America's Small Business Marketing Expert
R40 right 1997
Here comes one of the most important skills a marketer can have. If you understand a few things about twisted logic, and how it's used in marketing, advertising, persuasion, and sales--you'll be way ahead of the pack.
You can take university courses on twisted logic, but they will only teach you how to identify it and how to protect yourself from it. That's all well and good, but we want to go a step further. We want to USE twisted logic to help you obtain your goals.
Is this dishonest? Perhaps in a very strict sense. But you won't find many people in ANY walk of life that don't use twisted logic. IT IS EVERYWHERE..from the Supreme Court, to the President of the United States, to your neighborhood proce man, to your favorite clergy person.
Believe it or not, twisted logic is an important part of being human. That's the way it's been for THOUSANDS of years in EVERY country of the world.
Now. Let's get started.
Why would you want to use twisted logic?
Won't people say, "that makes no sense?"
Not at all. When people hear an issue discussed, they expect twisted logic. It's part of our culture. It has been an important part of the way we talk for thousands of years. It's how we persuade people. You are already very good at it. You win arguments every day with twisted logic. We are so used to it that we've probably never stopped to think about it. It's like the guy who said, "I don't know who discovered water, but I'll bet it wasn't a fish."
Experts have been talking about this ever since Aristotle penned The Art of Rhetoric several hundred years before the birth of Jesus. There is a big list of devices for fallacial reasoning, but we will only cover the ones most often used in media arguments.
Some Commonly Used Types of Twisted Logic
The biggest one is suppressed evidence. Even little kids use it. You tell the story, but not the WHOLE story. You leave out the part that would make you look bad, or in our case, make our message look less potent.
Politicians use evidence suppression constantly. They call it "looking at things positively." The real story is that they only tell you the parts they want you to hear. They leave out the aspects that contradict their message.
When your audience is not aware of the deleted details, this technique can be very effective. It can often be effective when the audience does know the whole story. People are so used to hearing the one-sided story that they often won't notice, they may even expect it.
The greatest persuaders of all time are a mixed bag. They range from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to Julius Caesar and the United States Government (at certain times in history). We try to learn from the good as well as the bad, keeping in mind that we should never step over the line to use persuasion to hurt others.
Nazi propaganda advisors (for better or worse regarded as some of the best in history) said that the one-sided story worked best. Giving a fair, balanced version to gain the audience's respect was regarded as ineffective.
Media persuaders often use the slippery slope. This is the old domino theory. Once one bad thing happens, then all sorts of other bad things will happen as a consequence. You see this one used a lot in advertising. If you don't buy the proct or service today, you'll develop a problem which will eventually destroy your life.
Is it really all that bad? Probably not. But the slipper slope is pretty good at convincing you otherwise.
The teenager takes a sip of beer, then goes on to pot. Before you know it, he's a full- blown heroin addict. Only a small percentage of cases turn out this way, but that is part of what the slippery slope is trying to conceal.
The city won't fix a traffic light. An accident results. The city is sued by the injured, costing thousands of dollars, forcing cancellation of politically important budget items, and derailing a politician's career. The lawsuit is quite probable, but the destruction of the politician as a result is stretching it a bit. As long as it's still in the realm of possibility, the slippery slope will slip past just fine.
The slippery slope is a fun one to use, especially when you can make it sound fairly logical. Aim it so that it starts with your problem and slippery slopes right toward a horrible disaster for the person you're trying to persuade. It's a way of relating your problem to their problems.
I hear the hasty conclusion used quite a lot these days. I get nuts over how many people buy it. It's simple and, oddly, very effective.
You present a piece of evidence to support your conclusion and hastily conclude that your point is right. The problem is, while the single piece of evidence does support the conclusion, it isn't enough by itself.
One unfairly and unfortunately used in many viewers minds: "I saw a black man steal a car on TV. Therefore, you have to be careful in the black neighborhood. They steal cars." Is that a fair blame to place on all African-American neighborhoods? Certainly not. But that is exactly what the hasty conclusion is trying to conceal. You've heard the hasty conclusion many times, and perhaps you've said, "Now don't start jumping to conclusions." You have noticed that other people listening were not bothered by this, they jumped right to the hasty conclusion with the person offering it.
This device is especially useful when you're trying to stir up people who already agree with your basic message. In this case, the audience wants to believe the message and merely needs the lightest of evidence to join in.
The hasty conclusion is also effective when the audience doesn't understand the intricacies of the story. Technical issues are almost always decided too hastily. The audience simply doesn't have the specialized ecation or patience to sit through the whole story. They want an answer quickly, and they don't mind if you skip a little too rapidly to a solution.
We are accustomed to the scientific method providing us with truth. The idea that a researcher could interview a carefully selected 220 people, and tell from that what all people think, is as common as the morning paper. But what if the people that are asked are not representative of the general population?
Then we have a small or unrepresentative sample.
This one gets used when somebody says,. "But everybody I know says...." When you think about it, they are probably only talking about two or three people, who may be very rich, or very conservative, or very religious, or unusual in some other way. "Everybody I know" is not a representative sample of everybody in town. In other words, your friends don't necessarily represent me and my friends, much less the woman on the other side of the river.
This is why there is so much fine print with responsible polling. Experts want to know just exactly how the statistics were arrived at. Even the little graph on the front of US Today can be slanted a bit so that instead of revealing information about everybody, it only tells us about a certain group.
It's not unusual to see a few wealthy home owners appear on TV to say everybody in the area is opposed to the building of a new health facility. They claim it will attract the wrong element and lower property values. Invariably, wait a couple of days, and you will see a newspaper story interviewing some people in the same area who would be delighted to see a new health facility built.
While the first home owners on TV convinced us that all were in opposition, they obviously did not represent the whole group. An activist pushing for the new facility would find a few who support it and represent them as the majority. Who has done the research to prove that they are wrong?
This brings to mind another tactic of twisted logic: unknowable statistics. I once worked for a prominent radio program director who would astound us in meetings with his voluminous knowledge of audience statistics.
He backed up his beliefs with "23% of women aged 20 to 44 prefer that only 5% of the newscast covers city hall." Everyone in the room, all experienced broadcasters, accepted his statistics without question. Then it occurred to me, how could he know all this stuff?
The fact was, he didn't. He made it up. Since we didn't have any way to prove whether his numbers were wrong or right, we just accepted them as sounding pretty darned official.
Listen to the media. When you hear a persuader saying "two-thirds do this" and "60% do that," ask yourself, how does she know these things? You may have uncovered an unknowable statistic (at least unknowable without a load of expensive research that you know they probably haven't done). It may be a statistic that the persuader is basing loosely on something he does know, or it may be an outright lie. The opponent won't or can't do the research either, so he can't really disagree with much authority.
Thus goes the old saying: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
When politicians try to get folksy, they often use the faulty comparison. This is when the President said, "I can't understand why the NRA won't support my bill to ban bullets that penetrate police jackets. I'm almost fifty years old and I have yet to see a deer, or a ck, or a goose wearing a mylar vest."
I laughed. He made his point very simply and I might be inclined to share the story with someone else. But a comical view of a ck wearing a flack jacket is nothing compared to the complicated and technical discussion of materials in bullets that had gone on prior to the President's comment.
If I say, "taking cks out of the park pond is like banning footballs from the university stadium," it's true that both items are familiar parts of their separate situations. But taking footballs out of the stadium would imply the end to college football games that thousands live for. My faulty comparison makes the removal of the cks sound much more evil than it probably deserves to be.
That is OK if I want the cks to stay, and people are jolted by the comparison.
The straw man is like suppressed evidence turned around backwards. You build a straw man when you represent your opponent's position, but while doing so, add some critical flaws to make his position easier to attack.
An historical building, which is rather dilapidated, is being torn down without the opportunity for renovation. There are all kinds of structural problems with the building. It would be expensive to repair and the city doesn't want to divert the money to pay for it.
Driving by, the only damage you see from the street, is a number of broken windows. Your straw man message will be: "The old fortress is being torn down by the city, even though all anybody can see wrong with it are a few broken windows. The proposal to renovate and preserve this valuable historic structure was quickly glossed over by the City Council. Why don't they just fix the windows? There may be some evidence that one member wants the building removed so that a crony's development company can build a strip mall."
Was the City Council's position misrepresented for easy attack? You bet it was. It could be possible, though, that the straw man version given may be close to the real truth, or it may reveal the underlying attitude of the Council on other issues.
Applying All This To Making More Money
I'll admit it. Many of the examples that I have used here have had to do with the news and politics. That's where we tend to notice twisted logic the most. Advertising is also full of it, but we tend to expect that from advertising. No one expects a TV commercial to make a completely fair comparison between the advertised proct and the competition.
Most of us tend to write our ads according to the way we've seen ads written before, without really understanding some of the persuasive techniques we're using. By consciously understanding some of the basics of persuasion, you will be a much more mighty marketer.
Your ads will sell, your commercials zing, and your sales pitches will boil with persuasive power. Am I exaggerating? Remember that the greatest persuaders in history were all masters of twisted logic. The next time you see your favorite business mogul on TV or interviewed in a magazine, watch for him or her to use twisted logic. Chances are, they will use it and use it well.
***
Some final thoughts on twisted thinking.
It is generally not a good idea to attack a person as a bad indivial. It leaves you open to lawsuits and the perception that you're just a little bit nasty. A better solution is to insinuate the bad person's guilt by associating them with someone or something that you know the audience doesn't care for.
Guilt by association is something our legal system avoids, but the average person has no problem with it. People may say they object to guilt by association ring an ideological discussion, but in actual practice they may use the device all the time.
Also remember that experts in one field aren't necessarily experts in another. Television is constantly using media stars to advertise everything from soft drinks to long distance telephone services. Because a skinny pop singer can hit high "c", does that mean she knows all about research animals? No, but the people who would be against animal research are quite likely the same people who like the singer's music. Since they like her, they will be inclined to believe what she says about just about almost anything (within reason).
⑻ 口语交际之劝说（约50字左右便可）
劝说身边的人戒烟，抽烟对自己不好也严重影响了他人的生活，二手烟的危害要比一手的还要严重的多，请善待自己，同时也善待别人！
⑼ 劝说口语交际100字
爸爸的烟瘾很大，妈妈多次劝爸爸戒烟，爸爸就是不听；就算听了，也就是几个小时，过后又吸烟了。爸爸吸烟吐出的烟呛得我和妈妈直咳嗽。爸爸吸烟还吸出了病，可他还是屡教不改。
有一次，上品德与社会，我看到《烟和酒的对话》，不看不知道，一看吓一跳！原来烟对人体有这么大的危害性。放学后，我回家把《烟和酒的对话》拿给爸爸看，爸爸看了严肃得说：“yes！我以后再也不会吸烟了。以前没有认识到烟的危害这么大，危害家人的身体，同时也危害了自己的身体。”我装作老师的腔调：“不错不错，希望你说到做到。”说罢，我和爸爸都笑了起来。
我怕爸爸不遵守诺言又想了一个法子——以身作则。我跑到爸爸旁边，问，“爸爸做人可不可不撒谎？”爸爸说：“假如是善意的谎言可以，但如果不是的话，那是绝对不可以的。撒谎就是坏孩子。”我又问：“爸爸吸烟对人体有什么好处？”爸爸说：“俗话说的好‘饭后一支烟，赛过活神仙’。我问：“真的有这么好？”爸爸说：“当然。”我夺过烟，吸了起来。爸爸生气的说：“小孩子不可以吸烟。”我说：“什么都要从娃娃抓起，吸烟也要从娃娃抓起。不然，你不就后继无人了吗？”爸爸哑口无言。“吸烟有什么坏处？”我又问。爸爸说：“吸烟危害身体健康，而且有可能使人走上犯罪道路，甚至导致人死亡。”我说：“爸爸你真是了不起，懂得这么多。爸爸得意扬扬的说：“那是！”我疑惑的问：“那你为什么要知法犯法，做一个坏小孩呢？你不是常常教育我们不要吸烟吗？你也是我的榜样呀。你既然教育我，那你这个做爸爸的也要以身作则。”爸爸听后羞愧的低下了头。
从此以后，爸爸再也不抽烟了。我在教育爸爸的同时也在教育了自己。不去靠近那些危害人类健康的‘无形杀手’。
⑽ 劝说口语交际100字
我有一个邻居哥哥，他经抄常到网吧去打游戏，不仅导致学习退步，而且视力下降，与家人疏远，甚至有时还与家人吵架。
我想借这次机会想对他说，大哥哥，请你不要去网吧了好吗？你也应该想想，网吧是一个对我们没有好处的地方啊！你的家人对你多好啊！可是你只要听到劝你不要去网吧的话，你就对家人大吼大叫，你知道吗？你的家人是多么地伤心啊，你不但不听他们的话，而且还硬要去，你爸妈不肯，你就对他们说出了这样的一句话：“我的事不要你们管！”你知道吗？你的家人听了，心一定都碎了。