Writing a speech!

For a forensics tournament, I need to write and practice a 4-minute speech. It is about the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib prison camps

I have tons of information, but I have no idea how to organize a speech, how to begin, or what information to include!
I am allowed to show opinion in this speech, but it must above all be informative.

Pleas help!

A lot of the speeches I have had to write for school, we were forces to write it in paragraphs all with different aspects or points to what we were saying. Is this supposed to persuasive or just informative?

If it is supposed to be persuasive, you would start with a catchy intro that catches the readers atttention and also makes them want to read on. You would have to introduce the topic also somewhere in there. Then you would organize the paragraphs into your main persuasive points. That is easy enough. Just think, what are the reasons why you want to persuay them. Then finish off with a complementing conclusion that settles in nicely with your introduction.

Also, with persuasive writing, their is three appeals. Pathos, Logos, and Ethos. Those are just fancy words that stand for using emotions to influence peoples oppinions, to use statistics to inform them on the situation, and to hit them hard with attacking the readers morals and values.

But all of that might be pointless if is not supposed to be persuasive.

If it is an imformative speech, still start off with a catchy intro to make sure you have caught the readers attention before you bore them to pieces with the rest of it. Then, because your topic is Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib prison camps, you could go into different parts of information you have about them in separate paragraphs. Like for one example, you could be talking about the different unruly torture methods they use, and another about how the court decides on if they go to Guantanamo Bay or not. I am not sure what kind of information you have so that is all I can say for now. Just make sure the paragraphs are in a logic order. Then finally, you have to have an effective ending so that the readers will be understanding of the topic to its fullest, hardly ever losing attention.

Sorry if I am not much help. That is just the basic on how I write speeches and so forth. But also I am still 13 so I don't really know how much you can take into consideration.

~Incognito

To expand on Incognito's idea, a speech is pretty much like a spoken essay. An essay is Thesis, Body, Restate your thesis.

So, have a good hook, have your supporting evidence during the "body" of the speech, and then restate your hook with slightly different wording to remind your audience what this was all about. ^_^

~Rosey

Thank you for helping! The speech is supposed to be objective for the most part, although I will not be penalized for showing an opinion.

I have already written a hook, and critique would be appreciated. Thanks!


Imagine being trapped in a cold hard cell. Bright fluorescent lights shine continuously in your face. You have been deprived of sleep, and interaction with the outside world. You have been beaten; thrown to the ground, stomped on, had chemicals sprayed in your face. Occasionally you are left naked in a freezing room, almost to the point of hypothermia. You have been threatened and raped for disobedience. You have been left isolated for months, and denied medical care. You have given false information, starved yourself, and even attempted suicide to escape your situation. You have not rights. You are no longer human. You are a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay.

And here is my thesis:

Since 2001, the U.S. government, in its haste for information has broken international law in the torture and mistreatment of prisoners.

Now that is a hook.

Your thesis, however, is missing a comma:

Since 2001, the U.S. government, in its haste for information, <--- right there has broken international law in the torture and mistreatment of prisoners.

Nice work!

Yay forensics! I'm not sure how you'll fit stuff in four minutes, but generally when you're writing an objective speech, you want to set up a dichotomy, but not sound stilted. Here's the structure I use:

INTRO
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
LIST OF CLAIMS -- even if you're writing an objective speech, you need to give the audience some idea of where you're going.

and then the claim structure is simple for an objective speech:

CLAIM
ANALYSIS
REBUTTAL
ANALYSIS

Kind of like you're debating yourself. However, you want to reach some kind of conclusion at the end, or else you're just catering to people who have preconceived notions about a topic and aren't forcing people to think. Ultimately, the best speech might not be the one that has your jaw drop during the delivery, but the one that keeps pestering you for weeks--and keeps you thinking.

I would kind of avoid the "You are" intro--it's kind of catchy here, but you might get a smartass in the audience who responds to everything with, "I'm not!". So instead, "imagine a place with..." might be better. Good performance is about getting rid of the variables, and sass-talkin' is one of them.

* also, in issues like this, if you live in a conservative place (like me!) you want to make sure that you're not demonizing the government. In the case of abu Gharaib, the problem was mainly with armed forces personnel, and then, not even top-ranking officials. The stuff at Guantanamo has yet to be verified. But you will want to bring up the Geneva Convention, and how, if Guantanamo is investigated further, the claims against it could put the US in serious trouble.

Thanks so much to everyone who has helped! I have so little time to write this, and its really good to get feedback on my speech, as I am writing it!


Also, I am thinking about getting rid of the Abu Ghraib part, because the speech is already getting long. Do think it would be okay to have only two body paragraphs?

Here is everything that I have so far. Please tell me how it sounds, and if I should change anything. Grammar and spelling errors aren't really important, as the speech is only meant to be spoken.


Imagine being trapped in a cold hard cell. Bright fluorescent lights shine continuously in your face. You have been deprived of sleep, and interaction with the outside world. You have been beaten; thrown to the ground, stomped on, had chemicals sprayed in your face. Occasionally you are left naked in a freezing room, almost to the point of hypothermia. You have been threatened and raped for disobedience. You have been left isolated for months, and denied medical care. You have given false information, starved yourself, and even attempted suicide to escape your situation. You have not rights. You are no longer human. You are a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay.
Since 2001, the U.S. government, in its haste for information has broken international law in the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. After creating new interrogation laws and regulations, the Bush administration began using these so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” in Guantanamo Bay. Some time later, similar techniques, although officially illegal, were brought to Abu Ghraib, a prison in Iraq.
The Geneva Conventions have for the past fifty years been among the most universally accepted treaties in international law. The four conventions dictate the international laws of war, and the international humanitarian law. The Third Convention guaranties prisoners of war basic rights, including humane treatment, due process, communication with protective agencies, and proper medical attention. The Forth Convention guaranties similar if not more protections to civilians captured during war. After the 9-11 attacks, the government was frantic for information, and fearful of another attack. To make interrogations move more quickly, the Bush administration announced that the Geneva conventions did not apply to terrorists or “enemy combatants”. They argued that because terrorism was an illegitimate act, terrorists should not be treated like legitimate combatants. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, however expressly protects all persons, no matter who they are, even if they are known to be guilty. The Department of Justice also issued a memo in August 2002. This Memo gave the president the right to do anything necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.
It was decided that Guantanamo Bay, isolated as it was, was the ideal place to keep high-value prisoners. For six years prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were subjected to extreme interrogation techniques.

Informative, just gave the facts and shows the darker side to what rushing will get you.

I like the way you've set this up.

Okay, Here is a sort of Draft. Please critique!


Imagine being trapped in a cold hard cell. Bright fluorescent lights shine continuously in your face. You have been deprived of sleep, and interaction with the outside world. You have been beaten; thrown to the ground, stomped on, had chemicals sprayed in your face. Occasionally you are left naked in a freezing room, almost to the point of hypothermia. You have been threatened and raped for disobedience. You have been left isolated for months, and denied medical care. You have given false information, starved yourself, and even attempted suicide to escape your situation. You have not rights. You are no longer human. You are a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay.
Since 2001, the U.S. government, in its haste for information has broken international law in the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. After creating new interrogation laws and regulations, the Bush administration began using these so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” in Guantanamo Bay.
The Geneva Conventions have for the past fifty years been among the most universally accepted treaties in international law. The four conventions dictate the international laws of war, and the international humanitarian law. The Third Convention guaranties prisoners of war basic rights, including humane treatment, due process, communication with protective agencies, and proper medical attention. The Forth Convention guaranties similar if not more protections to civilians captured during war. After the 9-11 attacks, the government was frantic for information, and fearful of another attack. To make interrogations move more quickly, the Bush administration announced that the Geneva conventions did not apply to terrorists or “enemy combatants”. They argued that because terrorism was an illegitimate act, terrorists should not be treated like legitimate combatants. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, however expressly protects all persons, no matter who they are, even if they are known to be guilty. The Department of Justice also issued a memo in August 2002. This Memo gave the president the right to do anything necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.
It was decided that Guantanamo Bay, isolated as it was, was the ideal place to keep high-value prisoners. For six years prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were subjected to extreme interrogation techniques, including both physical and physiological abuse. Prisoners who failed to comply with interrogators were often beaten, and threatened. Al-Laithi, a former teacher a Kabul University reported having his back stomped on and being repeatedly slammed to the floor. He suffered severe spine injury and said that he was in constant pain. An FBI interrogator claims to have entered a cell to find a prisoner shackled in a fetal position from the day before. He reported cell temperatures that were so extreme that the prisoner was either trembling in the cold, or had passed out due to heat. Prisoners in were also deprived of sleep and left in solitary confinement. Such abuse can lead to confusion and severe physiological problems in prisoners. In 2003 alone, government reports state that there were 350 acts of self-harm, as well as 120 hanging gestures. Prisoner Feroz Abbasi spent over a year in solitary confinement, and has since tried to kill himself.
Although such treatment is harsh, many of these prisoners are dangerous terrorists. But how many of them really are terrorists? It is impossible to know for sure. As general Rick Baccus said: We could not determine one way or the other at that point in time who was dangerous, who wasn't. So we believed that everybody was dangerous.”
On January 22, President Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this eloquent gesture, the new administration has shown little interest in holding anyone accountable for the situation at Guantanamo. With two wars, an economic crisis, and environmental problems, this is hardly the most urgent problem. Even so, it is possible that the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay will attract the attention of International law. Perhaps it is more important that Americans simply know what happened there. The more people know, the less likely they will be to allow such atrocities to happen again. The techniques employed at Guantanamo Bay were intended to help protect American values. But as Senator John McCain said: “American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.”







P.S: HUGE problem! I am one minute and 20 seconds over the time limit! What should I cut out?

This is from my public speaking tutor:

What is a good speech from a good speaker?
• A good speech is not a lecture or a monologue, it’s a conversation with the audience. It is clearly constructed, shows knowledge and understanding of the title, uses facts, data, statistics, and has moments of humour (if appropriate to subject matter). Be careful about misinformation, mistakes, waffle and sweeping statements.
• Understand different kinds of speeches … Political, Informative, Persuasive, Entertaining
• Work with your audience … give them responsibility for being responsive and listening. Don’t talk at them.
• Communicate with your audience - eye contact and a clear, natural tone of voice. Use projection to suit the room you’re working in.
• Keep your style natural, be yourself.
• Presentation – look good! (Whatever that may mean to you … suit the style.)
• All speakers are different – value that difference, don’t try to copy.
• Use technique to give you support and to free you, eg, modulation, which is how to stop your voice sounding monotonous/boring – change the pitch, pace, tone and volume. Use inflection – bending your voice, e.g. how many different ways can you say "Hello?"
• Think of your audience … difference between talking to teenagers, scientists or seniors for example. Make sure your audience can understand the kind of language you're using.
• Working from brief notes allows a speaker to be responsive to and spontaneous with the audience, while still staying on track. A full script or learning the whole speech by heart is too constraining. Brief notes put the speaker firmly in control. Use notecards.
• Particular public speaking techniques – the conversation with the audience, hand/arm gestures, rhetorical question, personal pronouns, statistics/facts, anecdotes, analogies, examples, use of language.

Hope this helps!

Gahks

Hey again! I've had a proper look at the speech and this is my feedback:

This needs a decent title! And not something like 'Guantanamo Bay Speech.' What is it? The point of a good title, like 'Taming the Dragon' (about overcoming China's problems) is that it helps you understand the content, mood and tone of the speech. Also, think about the purpose of the speech. Complete this sentence, “By the end of my speech, I want to have…” Write this statement above each and every paragraph and ask yourself, “Has this paragraph helped to achieve this?”

Imagine being trapped in a cold hard cell. Imperative – Good! Bright fluorescent lights shine continuously in your face. You have been deprived of sleep, and interaction with the outside world. You have been beaten; thrown to the ground, stomped on, had chemicals sprayed in your face. Occasionally you are left naked in a freezing room, almost to the point of hypothermia. You have been threatened and raped for disobedience. You have been left isolated for months, and denied medical care. You have given false information, starved yourself, and even attempted suicide to escape your situation. You have no rights. You are no longer human. You are a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay. Woah! You list too many things here. The excessive repetition of the personal pronoun ‘you’ can seem threatening to the audience and scare them off. Keep it brief – only list your three most important/powerful ideas. Make the point, move on.

Since 2001, the U.S. government, in its haste for information has broken international law in the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. After creating new interrogation laws and regulations, the Bush administration began using these so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” in Guantanamo Bay.

This needs a proper link... coherence is vital in any speech! Random 'bouncing around' between topics will lose your audience.

The Geneva Conventions have for the past fifty years been among the most universally accepted treaties in international law. The four conventions dictate the international laws of war, and the international humanitarian law. The Third Convention guarantees prisoners of war basic rights, including humane treatment, due process, communication with protective agencies, and proper medical attention. The Fourth Convention guarantees similar if not more protections to civilians captured during war. After the 9-11 attacks, the government was frantic for information, and fearful of another attack. To make interrogations move more quickly, the Bush administration announced that the Geneva conventions did not apply to terrorists or “enemy combatants”. They argued that because terrorism was an illegitimate act, terrorists should not be treated like legitimate combatants. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, however expressly protects all persons, no matter who they are, even if they are known to be guilty. (The Department of Justice also issued a memo in August 2002. This Memo gave the president the right to do anything necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.) This doesn’t seem relevant… cut!

You use the passive an awful lot… can you make the language more active? E.g. ‘Someone decided that Guantanamo Bay, being so isolated, would be the ideal place…’
It was decided that Guantanamo Bay, isolated as it was, was the ideal place to keep high-value prisoners. For six years prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were subjected to extreme interrogation techniques, including both physical and physiological abuse. Prisoners who failed to comply with interrogators were often beaten, and threatened. Al-Laithi, a former teacher a Kabul University reported having his back stomped on and being repeatedly slammed to the floor. He suffered severe spine injury and said that he was in constant pain. An FBI interrogator claims to have entered a cell to find a prisoner shackled in a fetal position from the day before. He reported cell temperatures that were so extreme that the prisoner was either trembling in the cold, or had passed out due to heat. Prisoners in were also deprived of sleep and left in solitary confinement. Such abuse can lead to confusion and severe physiological problems in prisoners. In 2003 alone, government reports state that there were 350 acts of self-harm, as well as 120 hanging gestures. Maybe less on the statistics and facts? A bit too essay-like. Prisoner Feroz Abbasi spent over a year in solitary confinement, and has since tried to kill himself. Can you make this whole section briefer and more to the point? You’re waffling a little.

Although such treatment is harsh, it is presumed many of these prisoners are dangerous terrorists. But how many of them really are terrorists? I love a good rhetorical question! Great. It is impossible to know for sure. As general Rick Baccus said: We could not determine one way or the other at that point in time who was dangerous, who wasn't. So we believed that everybody was dangerous.”

On January 22, President Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this eloquent (this doesn’t seem like the right word. Will your audience understand it? Maybe ‘much-needed’?) gesture, the new administration has shown little interest in holding anyone accountable for the situation at Guantanamo. (urgh, too long! Make this more concise. Have you read the speech aloud? Are you stumbling over any verbose, excessively complex sentences? If so, *sirens*) With two wars, an economic crisis, and environmental problems, this is hardly the most urgent problem (What! Bit arrogant/sweeping, no?). Even so, it is possible that the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay will attract the attention of International law. Perhaps it is more important that Americans simply know what happened there. The more people know, the less likely they will be to allow such atrocities to happen again. (You can emphasise this point more. Use the rule of three: ‘We must… We must… We must… The lack of emotive language kind of drains the life away from this, the most important thing, surely!) The techniques employed at Guantanamo Bay were intended to help protect American values. In the words of Senator John McCain: “American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.” This is good – a quotation is a form of appeal to authority and makes your ideas more credible. But this lacks a neat conclusion. Maybe return to an idea or image that you posed around or shortly after the opening – this gives unity to the speech.

And of course, the speech itself is half the story. You need to be aware of your delivery and the impact of verbal/non-verbal language.

Hope this also helps!

Gahks