Speeches 1&2

I forgot to blog yesterday about this. So I'll just do one longer entry.

~~~~
The speeches were actually really interesting. It was cool to see how most people set up things differently. We all had the same basic outlines: History, claim, reasons, backing, qualifier, conclusion, etc. But we all wrote and presented our speeches differently. Some people had more than others and some people had less. Some people relied almost completely on emotion and some people relied almost completely on logic. Most people were in the middle. There were quite a few really good speeches, too. The way people drew upon quotes and personal experiences was interesting, as was everyone's approach to the conditions of rebuttal/qualifier part.

The first day we did it was more interesting than the second, simply because I don't have to ability to focus for that long on the speeches. I kept spacing out and going all distracted. It's not that the last speeches were more boring- it's just that I was losing concentration.

My speech went better than I thought it would. I thought I would fail. I ran out of time and didn't do everything justice. But all in all, I think it went well. I have no idea if that was a problem for other people as well. Five minutes is a lot shorter than I thought it would be. I was also a lot less nervous than I thought I would be. Maybe that was because I was thinking about lunch the whole time.

EDIT: Were we supposed to blog about one person's in particular? I can't really remember what people said what anymore. I do remember that I thought that Brittney and Nick M had good presentations. I know other people did too but I've forgotten anything else. Oops.