Do you not see a similarity between people’s political beliefs and their religious ones? Why is one an idiot if he fails to question the latter, and not an idiot if he doesn’t question the former?
Yeah, I don’t get the furor your statements have caused.
I think, rEVOL, that you’ve got a crippling amount of idealism about the wrong things. Quite a few folks have said, with 100% accuracy, that “sounding spontaneous” and appearing to nimbly craft your speeches on the fly is actually an immense amount of preparation and practice. You can’t brush that off because it somehow seems fake or canned - it’s how it’s done, and how it always has been, with vanishingly few exceptions.
You don’t necessarily need to have a completely written speech, from lame opening joke to obligatory closing blessing. However, you do need an absolutely polished and practiced repertoire of components to pull out like rabbits from your hat - because if you try to pull them out of your ass “spontaneously” you’re just going to end up in YouTube clips of spectacular expository failure.
If you’re making a planned point about, say, price controls and someone bellows, “What about farmers?” you’d better have a couple of minutes of well-honed answer on exactly that topic, and not try to make it up from sheer brilliance and idealism up there at the mike.
So, two pieces of advice you’ve already been given:
- It’s all about preparation, practice and polish, no matter how bad that may taste to you;
- Never mention the Hitler thing again no matter how much you admire his oratory.
It doesn’t matter—he has repeatedly ignored anything that doesn’t fit his preconceived ideas.
“How can I become a great improvisational speaker?”
“Step One: First learn to be a solid non-improvisational speaker, for the technique.”
“No, I want to become a great improvisational speaker.”
Sort of like “I want to be a great painter! I really admire Picasso*!”
“First learn the basic techniques of art.”
“No! I just want to express my spirit! Like Picasso!”
*I can’t think of a great artist to parallel the weird Hitler thing.
Sorry, Bucko. You want a skill, you have to work at it. No shortcuts.
Another thing great orators have is the ability to sense the mood of their audience. You’re not doing very well at that. In fact you’re telling your audience that it’s response to your bizarre, distracting, creepy mention of Hitler was wrong. (It wasn’t.)
Then try doing what Hitler did: become psychologically warped, lose your fucking mind after trauma, get hooked on drugs, and appeal to people’s basest prejudices at a time of crisis to gain power. More than one politician has followed that last step.
Because the existence of a god or deity cannot be known. If a god or deity did exist, it would be intangible. Claiming that you are 100% certain that a god or deity does or does not exist just makes you wrong, because it is impossible to know.
Not for the OP, but for anybody else looking, Toastmasters does include improv speeches.
Too bad I’m trying not to be political here. You tempter! 
I want to do good and be effective. I don’t want to deceive anybody. I just want to inform and “enlighten” them. No tricks, just logic, reasoning, and open-mindedness. I want to keep my integrity.
And Drake, I don’t mean that I won’t practice, I’m just saying that I don’t want to pull an Obama and read from a teleprompter (or, in my case, notes or slides). Obviously, I will practice giving speeches and make sure I am informed on my topic and address specific points, but I don’t want to have speeches memorized, because it’s dull, it shows no conviction, and it often just makes you lose track of what you’re saying. If I’m debating, and someone asks me a question I didn’t expect, slides and notes won’t save you. Oratory skills will.
They do? What exactly is their idea of an improv speech? I’ve heard of Toastmasters, and I’ve wanted to join, but I have to save money for a bit. But, once I acquire what I’m saving for, I WILL have the extra money. ACTUAL improv speeches would be GREAT.
Regarding spontaneous speech, I’ve always been impressed by this one. It’s Robert F Kennedy’s remarks to an Indianapolis audience informing them that Martin Luther King Jr had been assassinated. Now, per Wikipedia he knew before boarding a plane from Muncie to Indianapolis that MLK had been shot, and found out upon landing that MLK had died. (My point is that he had at most the length of that flight to prepare those remarks.)
So it was about as impromptu a speech as anyone has delivered. And yet, he was tactful (mentioning, subtly, his brother’s assassination), eloquent and sophisticated (quoting Aeschylus). Most importantly, it was effective; supposedly there were no riots in Indianapolis that night as a result.
What about political beliefs that have been shown to be unworkable? (Note: I’m not singling yours out. I’m speaking generally.) If someone claims a deity does or does not exist, he may or may not be wrong. If someone claims Policy X is the answer to an issue, and there is evidence to show that Policy X will not work; and if that person still fervently believes that he Policy X is correct, does that not make him wrong?
If you want to push propaganda as Hitler did, then being a True Believer is probably not the way to go. You need to question your beliefs so that you can create counter-arguments to positions you know are false. If you don’t know the falsehoods, then it’s difficult to defend them.
Of course mentioning Hitler was a mistake. Is this thread going the way you wanted it to? Are you having the discussion you wanted to have?
The question of whether or not Hitler really was a great orator is beside the point. Mentioning him at all was a tactical error. It demonstrates tone-deafness about your audience and how your words will be interpreted by the group of people you are speaking to.
If you ever want to be a great communicator you need to learn this lesson.
You’re missing the point that people are trying to tell you. You say you want to persuade people to accept your ideas. But you mention Hitler as an inspiration. And that was a terrible idea if you wanted to persuade people.
If Hitler were to arrive in the modern world by time travel and was trying to take over again, the first thing he’d do is shave off his moustache and change his name. A great orator like Hitler would know enough to never mention Hitler and certainly never invite any comparisons between himself and Hitler.
And if you’re only going to speak to True Believers, it doesn’t really matter how good a speaker you are, because they’re going to drink it up and drown it in roars of approval. You can be as squawky as Hitler or as thoroughly irritating as Perot or Nader* and still wow 'em.
- I admire Nader as a consumer advocate and author; he was a crappy politician.
Yes, I get what you are saying. Some things aren’t realistically possible, but, KNOWING that there is or isn’t a god or deity is COMPLETELY impossible. You can THINK there is or isn’t, but you cannot KNOW, no matter how hard you believe or don’t believe.
Yes, thank you, good advice, as this is something I have been working on with both my writing career and my speaking. I always have this article right on my desktop to remind myself to anticipate counter arguments: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/Counterarg.html
I think that QUESTIONING my beliefs, and hearing the counter-arguments helps me strengthen my beliefs, but I never DOUBT my beliefs, unless presented with reason to completely change my position (which happens often). If I have done my research on a topic and have heard nearly every counter-argument against a topic with an open-mind, and I STILL believe, THAT is when conviction kicks in, and I believe THAT is when I have been at my best when speaking.
Yes, I understand that. Discussions on here are not necessarily in the same format as speeches I’d give in real life.
But, I truly believe that I can better myself (by improving my oratory skills) through study of Hitler (and obviously other great orators). If that bothers people, that’s okay. I want to persuade, but not at the cost of speaking my mind. If people think I’m a piece of shit for saying that studying Hitler has helped my speaking skills, that’s okay too. I know that my intentions are good and just, and that’s what matters most to me.
Why would anyone want to listen to your propaganda? And again you talk about Hitler in an admiring way. You just can’t learn, can you?
Not just referring to him, but quoting approvingly a long chunk of one of Hitler’s speeches. He’s obviously been studying Hitler a lot to have that at his fingertips.
No kidding. I teach Public Speaking and AP European History and I would have to look long and hard to find a quote like that.
Oh, look. Is that a bridge?