Luis Lagera 09/01/11 COMM 1 - Speech Critique, Sexual Assault vs.

Euthanasia Two student speakers deliver persuasive speeches on different, yet compelling topics affecting todays society: sexual assault on college campuses and the right to a humane death through euthanasia. Although both speakers give strong, compelling points that demand attention from the audience, the Sexual Assault speaker drives her main points more effectively in her speech than the Euthanasia speaker. With a captivating introduction, smooth delivery, clear organization, relevant supporting material, and a thought-provoking conclusion, the Sexual Assault speaker is clearly superior. In her introduction, the Sexual Assault speaker begins with a startling statistic that establishes the gravity of the situation 1 in every 3 women, along with 1 in every 6 men, has been raped in their lifetime. The speaker then declares that she will persuade the audience to join the sexual assault movement. While her credentials alone are notable, having joined rallies and a march through the capitol, they appear more distinctive after the speaker mentions of her little interest in the subject beforehand. The speaker confides with her audience how she was like one of them, once unfamiliar with the concept of sexual assault and thus without the intention to act on the matter. This implied image of the speaker jumping into fray of the situation, without any direct experience with sexual assault, ultimately gives her added credence, and allows the audience to relate with her even more. Unlike the Sexual Assault speaker, the Euthanasia speaker begins her introduction with an assumption that the audience has drunken alcohol before, adding that others may have accidentally mixed medicine in their alcohol. She then transitions to a story of a woman who went into a persistent vegetative state due to this mistake, and describes how her parents fought

for their daughters right to die. While this tragic story does set the stage for her speechs topic effectively, she falls flat in getting her audience to relate to the topic. Her initial notion of the audience having previously partaken alcohol did not translate well for me as a viewer. Whether or not the question was intended to be a carefree rhetorical question, it came off as a rather charged assumption that negatively affected my perception of the speakers credibility. After a captivating introduction, the Sexual Assault speaker addresses her audience with a steady and eloquent delivery throughout her entire speech. While the speaker has one or two missteps in pronouncing a word, such distractions were few and far in between. She speaks with a natural, yet charged demeanor that gleams of her deep involvement with the topic with a steady vocal rate and volume, the speaker shows how confident she is with the material. There were no noticeable instances of her rushing through the material, no movements or tonal inflections that seemed forced and contrived, no hesitations that betray inner worries or a lack of preparation. Her frequent, though thoughtful pauses provide understandable emphasis on startling facts and significant quotes. One effective tactic is her eye contact with the audience that accompanies strong statements; at 1:40, she directly addresses audience members who think that they have never met a rape victim (myself included), bluntly telling them with eyes forward, Youre wrong. This moment was akin to a poker player calling another players bluff, leaving a deep impression for those audience members that were specifically called out. In sharp contrast to the Sexual Assault speaker, the Euthanasia speaker addresses her audience with a less fluid and very rapid delivery. She constantly speaks with a fast vocal rate whiles providing inadequate pauses between statements. In effect, most of the material went over my head when I first watched her speech it was a struggle at times to follow along as she inadvertently blends statements together. Complicating the speakers fast vocal rate are multiple

vocal distractions, from the usual ums to awkward, mid-statement pauses. The speakers discussion of patient autonomy at 4:35 is an example of these two speaking problems coming together, creating what appeared to be a confused explanation of why patient autonomy is important. Sadly, this less-than-ideal speech delivery gave the impression that the speaker was not adequately prepared. Introduction and delivery aside, clear organization is another highlight of the Sexual Assault speech. At the beginning and end of the speech, the speaker clearly states her main points, numbering them from one to three with prominent hand gestures and pauses. Her transitions in between each of those main points were clear and concise, using words like first and secondly. As an audience member, I had no problem following her speech and recalling material from previous points. However, the Euthanasia speaker showed difficulty in keeping her main points clearly organized. At 0:55, the speaker lists her three main points without using terms to separate each point. With her previously stated problem of blending statements together and speaking at a fast vocal rate, the speakers transitions are indistinguishable from the statements preceding and following them. As an audience member, I had trouble knowing when one main point ended and another began by the time I realized that another main point was being discussed, I had missed a good deal of information. Another criterion that the Sexual Assault speaker did a great job fulfilling is to provide relevant supporting material to her speech. Her references ranged from politicians like Governor George W. Bush, who was quoted saying that sexual assault affects everyone in the state of Texas (2:16), to quotes from sexual assault help groups, like Safe Place (3:45) and the founder of Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA) (6:24), and a rape survivor (6:52). The wide

variety of references utilized in the speech reflects thoughtful research and is surely helpful for the audience, as they include a well-known politician commenting on the matter, people and organizations that are directly combating the issue, and someone who has direct experience with sexual assault as a rape survivor. With the Euthanasia speaker, her supporting material also reflects thoughtful research, utilizing a wide variety of references to doctors that debate the topic. Conversely, the Euthanasia speaker fails to cite adequately her references and establish their importance to the speech. At one point, the speaker cites John Harris (4:35) without stating his credentials during her discussion of patient autonomy. Ultimately, the speaker left me focused on thinking about his identity than the actual discussion. Lastly, a final criterion that the Sexual Assault speaker fulfills terrifically is to end with a though-provoking conclusion. While the speaker uses a statistic in the beginning as a safe point of reference, she later uses another statistic in the end for shock value. After questioning her audiences resolve to act on the matter, she explains, in the time it has taken me to deliver this speech to you, eight people have been sexually assaulted (7:20). This final statement caught me off-guard, while also establishing a sense of urgency to act on the matter. It is a haunting thought, knowing that someone in the world is being sexually assaulted while I learn about the topic from the safety of my dorm. Unlike her counterpart, the Euthanasia speaker did not employ similar scare tactics in her conclusion. Instead, she explains the importance of her previous points in a matter-of-fact tone of voice. While this method still works, her conclusion does not come off as memorable to her audience. Although both speakers were effectively persuasive in their speeches, the Sexual Assault speaker was clearly superior with her better introduction, delivery, organization, supporting material, and conclusion.