Overall they both share a theme of expressing feelings and speaking truthfully. Neither characters held anything back and just let their emotions
For example, they differ in the language that they present and the diction that they use. Both X and Henry use powerful diction throughout their speeches however, X’s diction is meant to be more emotion provoking. Henry does attempt to provoke thought as well as emotion from the delegates, the difference is that the delegates have a job that mandates them to look at things objectively. On the other side of the coin, X uses diction that is focused towards a large black audience. The choice of words do not have to be as carefully selected as Henry’s, he has already won over the crowd on past events and is using this speech to further influence them, which is not the case in Henry’s speech. X continually uses words like “Afro-American”, “Uncle Sam”, “cracker”, “Uncle-Tom-handkerchief-heads”, in order to relate to the audience. The words that X uses have purpose to them; these words are important to the audience because each word has a meaning to it. When X talks about “Afro-Americans” the black community feel that they have been labeled in a good way and are different. During this speech, X uses the name “Uncle Sam” three times when referring to the government and the white man that runs it. Using “Uncle Sam” lets the black community know that this is their enemy and the one that continuously oppresses them. Ultimately, each one of these profound speakers use diction to persuade the crowd in their own way
William Lutz and Russell Conwell are the two rhetoric speakers I have chosen. Conwell, a very intelligent, religious, and ambitious man, wrote a remarkable speech and read it thousands of times to thousands of people. Raising thousands of dollars, he used that money to build Temple University. With such a compelling speech, he encountered many people who enjoyed his work and his words are still remembered to this day. Conwell connects with audience on an emotional level, he almost befriends his audience. Talking to them as if they are on the same level, no matter who they are, almost as if they were his friend. For example, he uses words like “friends” and “our”,
The best speaker that I have ever heard is Bishop TD Jakes. Jakes is a Preacher, father, husband, teacher, very successful business man, movie producer and launched a syndicated talk show. There are several reasons why I believe that he is one of the best speakers that I have ever heard. One reason is that he is a man of great integrity. Although he is fallible his character speaks volume without him even uttering a word. Another reason he is such a prolific speaker is because of his ability to be led by his faith and thinks outside the box consequently producing a greater but new learning experience. George Bush describes TD Jakes as a kind man who puts faith into action. I am sure that he has attended many communication classes. However
First off, both are very passionate in the way they express themselves because it is clear they both believe highly in what they are speaking about. For Fitzhugh was hard for me to think of him as an avid speaker of what he believes in because what he was preaching was so wrong to me that at first, I couldn’t look past the terrible things that he was saying. But as I moved through the text, I
It is not relatively easy to be a great speaker. To pull your audience to you, and have them consuming every sentence you prepare for them, every word you breathe. Your audience has to believe in you, trust you. They need hope and encouragement. Every word produced, and every expression given away, has to be a part of the plan. Essentially, prevailing as a great speaker is an art; an art that must be practiced and polished until a fresh gem is formed. President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are not unaware of this powerful tool.
The main similarity between their speeches was that they both agreed that compromise was sometimes necessary. They also agreed that fighting and standing up was also sometimes necessary. They both agreed on doing what they thought was best for their country.
Jonathan Edwards and Patrick Henry's backgrounds and speeches showed many similarities, but also many differences between both speeches carried incredible power
In concision, this controversial topic has many different conceptions in virtue, utilitarian, biblical perspectives. From a virtue ethicist view, Pollan’s recommendation is helping to rethink wisely about our eating habits and how it is making a big impact on the environment and on the global starvation. A utilitarian ethicist will view this issue from the point that by eating too much meat, the global starvation is going to increase and the results won’t be the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and in this case Pollan’s recommendation is the best solution to decrease the global starvation and make more people happy. Christian ethicist will combine virtue and utilitarianism ethics, because it is the whole absolute truth,
In public speaking of any form to a diverse group of individuals, my main consideration as the speaker is my concentration on the audience that I am speaking to. In starting an effective presentation,