Discussion #1 - 9/14

Response to Speech Buddy Interactive Videos

Light Pollution

The first speech that I listened to was Courtney Stillman's introduction on light pollution. I felt it was an excellent introduction as it listed very clearly the different points she would cover in her presentation. Her intro alone showed that she was able to organize her speech into a very coherent structure. She started out by listing some well-known pollutants, and then introduced light pollution. She, then, succinctly listed the main points she would cover later in her speech. She would define light pollution, describe the effects of it on earth, and finally, she would conclude her speech by giving solutions for fighting light pollution. This intro showed me how important it is to keep introductions short and general. The bulk of our info should be given in the body of our speech.

I felt that spending about 40 seconds on the intro was also a thoughtful act. For a speech that was supposed to be 8 to 10 mins long, any intro between half a minute to a whole minute is adequate. By doing so, Courtney could devote 2-3 minutes on each of her three main points and another minute or two on the conclusion. This speech definitely made one thing clear for me: Timing is KEY in speech making.

The only negative feedback I would give Courtney is that she was looking more at her notes and less at her audience. At times it felt like she was reading off complete sentences, and I would suggest that she do the exact opposite. I know through previous experiences that you want very short bullet-point notes and you want to make eye contact with the audience more than your note cards! Other than that, the intro was great!

Drinking

Matthew's speech on the hazards of drinking irresponsibly was very INFORMATIVE. The purpose of his speech was supposed to be to PERSUADE the audience not to drink irresponsibly. His hook into the speech was also clever and attention-capturing. However, he lacked emotions and was delivering the speech too slowly to really hold the attention of the audience. I felt that Matthew's speech could have had a few less statistics and a few other bits of information (how do illegal drinkers get alcohol, how might one get peer-pressured). The speech seemed extremely dry, and monotonous. Also, just stating statistical figures throughout the body of the speech can't count as a proper written speech. Generally, you have statistics here and there in your speech to support your already existing argument or claim. Also, I felt that the speech was NOT persuasive.

The only tool Matthew was using to persuade students not to drink was the probability of getting hurt. There was no mention of personal problems due to drinking, social problems, distraction at work, school, or in relationships. At least if he was going to state just number figures, Matthew should have spoken with more emotion and varying tones in his voice so that students could stay awake during the speech. Also, using an overhead/transparencies was not justified. In fact, it distracted me from the speech because there was hardly any info on the overhead that he couldn't have just said in his speech out loud.

Finally, Matthew's speed was too slow to keep the audience engaged. I had to skip bits of the speech because I felt he was going too slow and stumbling on certain words which was distracting me from the flow of the speech itself. All in all, it was a waste of 7 minutes. I could have looked up stats online in half of that time. This was an example of how NOT to deliver a persuasive speech. Actually, this was also an example of how NOT to deliver an informative speech either. Nowhere is it said that if the purpose of the speech is to dish out facts then the speech has to be so dry!