Discussion Of The Speaker's Speech: Steampunk

In many ways Gonzalez delivers a great speech that allows the listener

While I was listening to the audio recording of his speech, he sounded so confident when talking to them. He was a persuasive speaker and spoke to his audience with respect and honesty. He began his speech with a strong hook which I believe caught the attention of his listeners and myself. “I

She spoke very clearly and her tone was very easy for me to understand and listen. She put many of the facts she spoke about into situations that her audience could better understand, which made it easier to follow along and comprehend. This also made it seem like more of a conversation instead of just a speech. Because she was familiar with her speech, she hardly relied on her notes during delivery and made good eye contact throughout.

Her transition into her conclusion was not obvious, and it did not reiterate any of the main ideas from the body. Her closing sentence “We should be getting adults to start thinking more like children”, is an ironic and powerful statement. It would have closed the speech very well, if she had slowed down when she was speaking it. It sounded like she was going to tell us more, because of the way she said the last sentence. Because of this, there was a slight awkward pause between her ending and the audiences clapping. Despite the weird ending, I could tell the audience really enjoyed her speech. It was memorable because of the way she delivered her information, her use of visual aids, and it’s relativity to the audience. I feel the primary message was not only to inform about how children think, but also to encourage adults to be more open minded, imaginative, and creative. In other words, be more like a

Last but not least, of course, both speakers are very concise and clear in their speech. They did not say anything more or anything less than they needed to. Their speeches were likewise free of many verbose phrases or uncommon vocabulary words, as both of whom were speaking to general audiences; they kept their phrasing and vocabulary

I would definitely say that Pastor Dave Galbraith was a credible speaker. He went to Northwestern University and received a degree in religious studies, and has since been a pastor for many years. He also came out of retirement to become a pastor again, as he enjoyed it so much, and you could get the sense that he was a trustworthy guy to listen to. He was very effective in his speaking, and you could tell he reviewed the material ahead of time. You could tell that he had practiced, and he used very little fillers such as “uhs” or “ums”. He definitely showed his competence by citing the Bible and using presentational aids. Pastor Dave showed dynamism through the use of enthusiasm in his voice as he quoted the Old Testament, and laughed and smiled as he presented. His energetic movement around the podium/stage and his exaggerated hand gestures helped to hold the attention of the audience. (C9)

This was a great presentation where almost if not all points on how to do a speech where hit. She started with an excellent introduction cashing the attention of all by stating about the troubles of the strawberries. Also, the whole speech was well developed and organized. The only think that I think this speech could have been better, was by placing a strong conclusion, other than that it is a great speech.

He kept his voice at a medium tone, making sure he was not loud. His language of English could be heard, even though his nationality was not fully American. He never stumbled over words or lost his trans of thought. He really seemed to now his work and didn’t really have a flaw when speaking about it the subject .As for his body language; it was fairly decent for the most part. He didn’t move around much during the presentation. At times his seemed very stiff standing at the podium. He gave small moderate hand gestures while speaking. When describing something within the subject he hands moved much more freely. His eyes contact with the audience was great. Even when turning to the next slide of the PowerPoint, he never took his eyes of the audience. While speaking he would turn his head, giving good contact with both sides of the audience in the room. His facial expression was solid. You could tell through his facial expression how important the subject was. Nevertheless, he could have been more entertaining. There was a point in where many people started to lose interest in the subject. He could have used jokes related to the subject or got the audience little more involved. It had got to the point where many people starting engaging more in the cellular devices later down the presentation. This has to change if he wants people to continue to listen to

She also balanced the speech well. For the few minutes she had to speak, she spent almost all the time on the main points. She adequately developed the points; she clearly showed what she was doing. She then finished with a quick, strong conclusion.

aware of some of the facts he mentioned., it was very interesting and humorous talk. The most

3. Was the speech well-organized? Did it have a robust introduction, a solid body with specific main points, and a conclusion? How was the time allotment for each section (too long, too short?) Were the times dedicated to each section appropriate? (Introduction and Conclusion: between 45 seconds to1 minute; Body: main points each 1:15 – 1:30)

This speaker was very interesting, to say the least. Although this interview took place in the late 50’s, there are many parallels that exist today. For example, when he mentioned the propaganda being used by Hitler at that time, reminds me of how much technology has evolved to reach so profusely. Especially with the use of social media, when our countries leaders utilize sites such as Twitter to communicate with other major leaders and spread their beliefs. It is disconcerting, however, America’s leader and North Korea’s leader choose to use their social media platform to childishly argue with each other and name call. Huxley was right, that the growth of technology has allowed there to be a growth of propaganda.

The slides that he used in his presentation were very clear to understand and he did a good job of explaining what everything he showed meant. He explained all his information in a very clear and easy to understand way, even for those who do not understand medical terminology.

What, seemed out of place was the fact that this was given in church which I tough was odd swing that politic and church should not link and the fact that she stated that she was voting for Hilary Clinton. the speaker creates and maintain audience excitement and attentiveness right through the speech people were cheering and applause memorable time trough the speech. I would characterize the approach the speaker took in presenting her material as aggressive bout honest I would describe her tone of voice as

The first speaker chose Sublime as his preferred text editor. He covered a lot of material in a short time. This made his speech go by very quickly and was difficult to follow. Even though it was a bit rushed, I did learn a few things from his speech as I use Sublime to write my programs. But, it would have been better if he paused a few times during the speech. That way his speech would have been easier to understand by the audience members who used other text