Saturday April 26, 2008 Reviewer: Doniece
Person Reviewed: Leslie
Your introduction was great and your attention device really got my attention. Your provided gret reasons for why over population is harmful and the negative affects of over crowding. You used transitions between main ideas very well and they were very obvious when moving from one idea to the next. Your gestures aided in your speech and you used a good tone, volume, and eye contact with the audience. You provided a resolving action and reasons why it would benefit your cause which made me want to get involved in your cause. Also your statement, "What college student doesn't like sweets" helped you really connect with the audience and get them to pay more attention to what you were trying to say. You also provided great reasons for why your plans would be effective and help the community. Your conclusion was great and used the three R's effectively. In doing so you left me and most likey the entire audience with a feeling, positive or negative, that would make me want to get involved with your plan. Overall, yur speech flowed well and it was easy to follow . I think you did very well in presenting the information and providing a great resolvoing action to over crowding. I really took interest in your topic and I think you did great!
Posted by debolds ( Apr 26 2008, 09:11:28 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Reviewer: Doniece Bolds
Person Recviewed: Johnathon Betts
Topic: Death Penalty
To begin with, your attention device was a little shaky at first, but you pulled it together and successfully got your point across. Next time try to be more direct with what your trying to say and use appropriate language when addressing your audience. Your transition to your introduction was great. You listed what was going to be discussed and succesfully illustrated your topics. Transitions from one main idea to the next wee very evident and clear. Your use of examples to support your claims were diverse and very good. You used statistics and hypothetical situations to create this illustration for your audience. Your posture was great and I just want to suggest that you try not to rock from side to side because it can be a bit distracting and cause the audience to lose focus. Your eye contact was food and you spoke in a great volume and tone. Throughout your paper you got a bit tongue tied probably due to nerves,and I was not quite sure of what you were saying or what your resolving action was, but in the end you pulled it together. To avoid this happening, try to pause and take a deep breath so you can relax and focus and what message your trying to relay to your audience. During your conclusion you should try practicing the three R's. Restating your attention device would have provided for a great ending and it willo give your audience something to think about after the speech has concluded. This will also leave them feeling some kind of emotion or want to take up an action which is great for a call to action speech.
Posted by debolds ( Apr 26 2008, 08:59:36 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Call to Action Peer Review
Reviewer: Tim Agius
Speaker: Marquette
Topic: Legalization of Marijuana
I felt that Marquette gave a fantastic speech that related well with the audience. A clear need for action in his topic was illustrated very well because he spent a good amount of time discussing how our jail cells are overflowing with people who have been committed of very minor crimes dealing with marijuana. The actions that were discussed were specific and to the point in terms of getting the laws changed by protesting and writing to our senators. He did a great job in his persuasive strategies since he related very well to the audience by asking how many of us in the audience knew someone who had either done marijuana or had gotten in trouble because of marijuana. It was this phrase that made me want to take action, because he talked about not how we would feel if someone close to us was thrown in jail for at least 10 years for something as minor as having a small amount of marijuana. I definitely agreed with him on this speech and you can tell that he was passionate about his topic. Also, the clarity and rhythm he used was veyr good to motivate the audience and did a great job of energizing the audience. Overall, I thought Marquette gave a great speech in which the majority of the audience not only related to him, but agreed with him.
Posted by tjagius ( Apr 26 2008, 05:44:04 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Call to Action Peer Review
Reviewer: Tim Agius
Speaker: Stephen Lee
Topic: Universal Healthcare
I felt that Stephen did an excellent job with his speech and really got through to the entire audience discussing a very important topic like universal healthcare. By using several key statistics and emphasizing how much not having healthcare affects everybody, he did a great job of illustrating an immediate need for action. The actions proposed were specific and very helpful. He proposed protesting and taking our own actions and care when it came to our health and what to do to ensure our health. Stephen did an excellent job of moving a committed audience to want to act because he did a fantastic job of relating to the audience and showing how not having healthcare is bad for everybody. One phrase that stuck with me was how he mentioned to think of your family and friends and what would happen if one of them got sick and were not able to be adequately treated due to not having healthcare. Overall, I thought Stephen once again did an excellent job with his speech and really vivid in motivating the audience to act and energizing the audience since you could tell that he really cared about the topic that he was speaking about.
Posted by tjagius ( Apr 26 2008, 05:22:43 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Speaker: Jing
Reviewer: Caroline Lea
Topic: Ban Smoking in Restaurants
In her speech to ban smoking in restaurants, I felt Jing did an excellent job of conveying a clear need for action on this issue. Throughout the speech, it was clearly shown that there are serious health risks to be obtained from inhaling second hand smoke. In one specific example, I remember her saying that in one year alone, 35,000 people died as a result of illnesses from second-hand smoke, illnesses which could have resulted from sitting in a smoke tolerant restaurant. She also mentioned how children are greatly affected from allowing smoking in restaurants because of the effects the carcinogens have on their developing bodies. By giving the statistics and facts on the potential dangers of breathing in second-hand smoke, the speaker effectively conveyed the need to ban these practices.
Along with her strong argument, the speaker also gave a good, specific action to put the ban into effect. For her action, the speaker suggested that we first gather at
While listening to this speech, there were also key phrases which were very motivating to her action. The speaker effectively used phrases such as health risk, harmful, and death which made the issue stand out greatly with listeners and made them want to prevent these things from happening to themselves or others. Repeatedly using phrases like these throughout a speech also works to keep audience members focused on the issue which made them more likely to support her actions to ban smoking in restaurants. Overall, I thought this speech effectively showed audience members the need for change, and gave them a good, specific action to set these changes in place.
Posted by eclea ( Apr 25 2008, 07:00:01 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Reviewer: Jing Lin
Speaker: Elizabeth
Elizabeth's speech was on banning cosmetic surgery on animals. First, she explained that thousands of animas die each day because of these surgeries. These surgeries should be banned because they are useless, only to make animals look nicer, and the results are different. Animals could die from bleeding. She made a really good point by saying that us humans would not want our fingers or our ears to be cut off, why should we do this to animals. Her call to actions are to spread the awareness of the dangers of these surgeries, she wants to us to go to a meeting so we can do something to help these animals and to contact local newspaper about these problems. She also explained that we should set an account on facebook so people from all over can help in achieving the goal of banning cosmetic surgery on animals.
Posted by jlin7 ( Apr 25 2008, 06:28:08 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Reviewer: Jing Lin
Speaker: Zach C.
Zach's speech about genetic food modification clearly stated the actions he want the audience to take. He first explained how the genetic food modification effects the people and the fact the 12 million people had food allergies as a result. He explained that currently there are no law to make the companys to label their food if it has been modified and urged us to take action so we know what we are eating. His call to action includes spreading the problem to the world, label the modified foods, and boycott the major stores that sell genetic modified food. The speech was well brought out and his actions were clear.
Posted by jlin7 ( Apr 25 2008, 06:17:09 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Speaker - Jing
Reviewer- Robert Smith
Topic - Smoking in Restaurants
The speaker was clear in her illustrations of the dangers of smoking and of second hand smoking, but did not make the link to restaurants as well. She had two very specific actions that she was calling for. The first being handing out flyers in support of this argument, this would make the public more aware of this issue and help build support. The second was action that she called for was to sign a petition. The speakers persuasive strategies were used well. The danger to the public was a useful way in getting the people to feel that this was an issue concerning them. Her repeated reference to children was good at trying to evoke an emotional feeling, this may have been more affective with an audience that was made up of people would had children; it may have been somewhat less effective on the class. She used the phrase let our voice be heard, this was used to inspire the audience to take action and was very affective. She was very clear, and did a decent job of being vivid. She keep evoking a mental image of someone smoking in a restaurant this was useful. I am not sure if the speaker was able to energize the audience so much. She could have been a bit more passionate about her topic, but it was not a glaring weakness.
Posted by rasmith6 ( Apr 25 2008, 03:28:45 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Reveiwer - Robert Smith
Speeker- Donice
Topic - Animal Testing
The speaker was very clear in illustrating a need for action on the topic of animal testing. She claimed that using animals in testing is not a true comparison to humans, therefore making it not beneficial. She had two actions that she called for and they were very specific. There were to stop buying products that were tested on animals and gave the audience a way to find out which products were tested on animals. She also encouraged us to write our governmental officials. The speaker used persuasive strategies very well; she was one of the better speakers at that. Her argumentation was more than adequate. Her evidence was not as strong, but not bad enough to take away from the effectiveness of her call to action. Her speech did not make me want to take action, but I am firmly on the other side of the argument on this topic. Had I no opinion on the topic it would be safe to assume that I would have been motivated to take action. I would not view this as a poor reflection of her speech. I would have been considered a hostile, yet respectful audience member. Donice did a good job of using linguistic strategies in her speech. She was very clear, and vivid. She did an excellent job of giving an visual image of the animals being used in testing. On the subject of how energized she made the audience with her speech, I would put her soundly above the average speech in the class, but would not say that she was exceptional in this facet of her speech. On a whole, the speech was entertaining; time did not drag while she spoke. It was easy to follow her logic, she was understood by the audience, and effectively communicated her thoughts.
Posted by rasmith6 ( Apr 25 2008, 03:05:23 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Robert Smith
Self-Reflection: Call to Action Speech
I do not think that I illustrated a clear need for action. In retrospect, I seemed like that I relied on the audience remembering my Persuasive speech. Had I combined the speeches, it would have been very clear. I think that I felt restricted by the time and spent more time on the actions I was calling for instead of the need. The actions I called for ranged from general to specific. The audience knew several ways they could do something, with a variety of effort levels as well. I do not think that I energized the audience very well. Having taken two exams that day before my speech, I was a low pointing energy on that day. If I had been more energetic I think that it would have translated better to my audience. I was clear and had a good rhythm, but most of that was provably negated by my lack of enthusiasm. My strong points were that I gave my audience several different ways that they could act. My speech was concise. I felt that I got through my speech with a minimal number of vocalized pauses, only stubbing once in my speech. My negatives are that I could have put a greater emphasis on the need for the action and I could have been more energetic in my oration. My logic was sound, and my speech seemed fairly entertaining. If this and the persuasive speech were given as one speech, it would have alleviated many of these concerns. More care could have been given to make this call to action speech stand alone.
Posted by rasmith6 ( Apr 25 2008, 02:48:56 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]Robert Smith
Self Reflection - Persuasive
I fell that my arguments were clear and clean, although I started with the oppositions view first. This was not the norm, and may have lead to some confusion as to my side of the stance. Presenting the opposition view first felt right for the situation, since I was trying to weaken their commitment. I feel that the strength of my introduction made sure that everyone knew what side of the position I was on. My opposition argument was not as strong as I would have liked it to be, it was more of blend of explaining the Act and the views of the proponents of it. This made my opposition argument not as clear as it ought to have been. My evidence for abuses was very clear, and was often direct quotes. My quotes were probably a little too long for this speech and the time constraints I had to adhere to. I could have used more evidence of what it Act would do to the country instead of leaving it up to speculation. I felt very good about my persuasive strategies. My use of repetitive phrases was affective; it gave my speech good rhythm. My attention getting device has the strongest part of my speech. My use of the word Patriot at first to represent our founding fathers, to the football team that was caught spying to the Patriot Act. I started by using the word with a good connotation and gave moved on to give it a bad connotation. This was used to give my audience a negative feeling about the word, and hopefully that feeling would carry over to their views of the Patriot Act. This was the strategy used by Act writers when they named it, trying to give the legislation a good connotation. By doing this, I was able flip it around, back on Act, at the same time demonstrating to the audience the way the naming of the Act was used to get this passed. Hopefully I was able to tap in to the subconscious emotions of the audience to persuade them. In my opinion this was my best speech in both content and delivery of the semester, but I could have taken my volume down a bit. After having trouble hearing other peoples speeches, I may have over compensated trying to be heard.
Posted by rasmith6 ( Apr 25 2008, 02:30:36 PM EDT ) Permalink Comments [0]