Morgan Zeliff, Evaluation of Others’ Speaking in the Community, Fall 2004

On October 26, 2004 at 7pm, David Schmitz gave a speech comparing the current war in Iraq with the war in Vietnam to a group of students and Walla Walla community members. The speech was sponsored by the men of Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity and the women of Delta Gamma Sorority. It was advertised to the entire student body as well as to the Walla Walla community through notice boards throughout campus, including in the Reid Campus Center. Some of his points seemed to be more persuasive, rather than informative, but for the most part his speech was focused on the historical comparison of the two wars. He also openly admitted to his biased opinion.

Overall, I feel that the speech was successful at the most basic level of informing the group of the subject matter. The introduction had a clear thesis statement, the body was well organized and easy to follow with a substantial amount of support for each point, and the conclusion brought it all together while drawing to a higher point. The delivery was also effective because of the speaker’s relaxed, yet firm manor and clear, he projected his voice well and sparsely used his notes (although it made me feel better to see that he did actually use notes and once or twice he seemed to need them to remember his next point). The question/answer period at the end also demonstrated the speaker’s vast range of knowledge on the subject. But this speech was different in several ways from the speeches that I have listened to and evaluated in class. It was different because it had a multi-part and complex thesis statement and because the speaker himself was a published and authoritative source on the subject.

In our class speeches we have worked hard on presenting arguments that can be summed up in a short, concise thesis statement. This in part is due to our time restriction of six to seven minutes, but it is also because when a thesis is much longer it often gets lost on the audience and the entire speech is consequently weakened. David Schmitz’s thesis was neither short nor concise, but within the context of the longer speech and through clear repetition of his previous points that came along with the growth of his thesis, he was able to deliver a complex thesis that I felt did not detract from the speech. His introductory paragraph didn’t really touch on a thesis (in the sense of a thesis being an argument to some extent), it was more of a statement as to the subject he was going to be presenting. His thesis really developed point by point throughout his speech. And as I stated, he was able to build his thesis throughout the speech without loosing the audience because directly before he added another piece to his thesis he would sum up in a concise statement the parts of the thesis that he had said before. I enjoyed this approach because every point brought a new piece of information to the table, it kept it interesting, whereas, when the thesis is plainly laid out in the beginning it can become boring by the third or fourth time around. I don’t think though, that I should take this approach in shorter speeches because it really would be hard to do well. In a way, it was as if he gave several small speeches, each with their separate theses. Perhaps when giving longer presentations a more complex thesis is necessary to provide with a subject matter that can be discussed for an extended period of time.

Another key difference that I observed from listening to this speech was the fact that the speaker was actually considered a credible source on the topic he was presenting. At the beginning of the speech he explained his credentials, which I don’t remember the specifics of, but I do know that he said his professional focus was the Vietnam War. As he gave the speech I specifically noted that, at least in the beginning he did not use a lot of supports (quotes, facts, figures) for his arguments. Because we have been learning to listen for these types of supports all semester I judged the points in the beginning to not be very strong. Later in the speech when he began to use more quotes, which he always cited, I felt his arguments held more merit. Afterwards though, I wondered if perhaps because he himself would be deemed, at least in the academic world, as an “expert” whether or not he actually needed a lot of citations. I suppose that regardless of whether he technically, to be credible, needs them or not there is value in the fact that I did feel more convinced by arguments that were supported by outside sources. This really showed me the value of using good, credible sources. Now I know that not even an “expert” sounds as convincing without some support.