Discussion Of The Speaker's Speech: Steampunk

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

He had a lot of slow pauses that were caused by him just stopping to think and because this was genuinely a delicate subject for him to discuss. In addition, his delivery was very smooth and came off beyond humble. He did not feel the need to scream, shout or be dramatic he kept his body language very quiet and let his words do all the work. All these different things gave the message to the audience that he was truly grateful to be getting the award but that there was a bigger matter at hands and someone with more courage than him that had pushed him to be the best version of himself.

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.

Once again his overall posture and confident level was excellent. The speaker shows passion for the subject he is speaking on from the hand movements when he speaks on poverty and domestic abuse as being trivial (a means to an end). The speakers volume was just right he spoke high enough for the back of the room could here, and the speech was easy to understand. When given a speech a speaker should consider his audience in the wording of his speech, is he giving a speech to children for educational purposes or a group of college students, this is call no one left behind so the entire audience is on track.

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)

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

Dr. La Gerche gave an overall capable speech. His PowerPoint was well put together. It used dark colors that displayed well on screen and didn’t have paragraphs of text. The graphics were extremely effective some were

- What I did well during my speech was looking at my audience. I was always facing my audience and have a quick view to my PowerPoint. I believe I did well on these aspects because I wasn’t like the other students always looking at the PowerPoint and not even facing the audience. I know this is a public speaking class and the point is to talk to our audience while facing them.

The reason why I said that the simplicity of the speech was a good thing is because it made the speech easier to understand. That helped people who normally cannot understand

Even he looked comfortable during his speech but shown emotion and motivate his feeling and mindset. He’s language style gives some types of inclusiveness to the audience, for example, he used “we” and “our”. He shown that the speaker and the people are not different, and that make them start to admire him. His emotion and attitude of his speech helped motivate and persuade the audience

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)

While he did a better job with time allocation and not getting too detailed in his explanations, both speakers could have managed time better to save time for the last 3 slides. As mentioned above, the PT intervention slides and conclusion were both rushed.

One issue she had during this speech was that during this time she was going to show us a few photos of herself after the explosion but there was a technology issue and she was unable to do this. Even though the pictures were not working, the devices of using her feelings in her voice and her emotion were just enough to pull me in to being interested in her story. Also, at one point she went to pass out a hand out and show us statistic but it took her a little while to find the sheet of paper which was one negative part of her speech because she should have had it in a spot she could easily get to. Since she was getting so into some of the stories she would also go off track and kept telling different stories. This was still very interesting but it kind of went off topic off why she was their speaking to us. Simmons was leaning against a table at times which was sometimes distracting because she seemed to be too relaxed at times and at the beginning she was moving her hands too much but then held a paper to calm her movements down which was good.

Mario Capecchi was a great speaker with a very high intelligence level. The crowd he spoke for was confused at some points but he managed to use his power point slides to grasp attention. His slides were to the point but mainly went over my head. The wording was hard