You said you want to improvise your speeches. And people have pointed out to you that the speakers you admire don’t do that. They know ahead of time what they’re going to say - they may even be speaking words that somebody else wrote for them. Their gift is to do this and make it look like they’re just speaking extemporaneously. They work really hard to make what they’re doing look easy.
You seem to want to skip all the hard work and jump right to what you see as the good part. You claim you want to practice but you only want to practice the interesting stuff. To use my football analogy, you want to practice - but in your mind, practicing means playing football not running laps, working out, memorizing plays, doing drills, and all of the other stuff that the professionals do before they go out and play the game.
You are never going to be a great speaker if you let yourself be distracted from your message. People have done that throughout the thread. Don’t let that happen.
If you want to be a good extemporaneous speaker, you need a repetoire of jokes, stories, anecdotes, and arguments, all relating to your main subject. You will not be able to do that with more than one subject.
Someone to consider emulating (just to get away from Herr Schickelgruber) is Malcolm X. He talks in his autobiography how he practiced taking control during interviews, right from the introduction, and he only and ever talked about one thing - the plight of the American Negro. And he had a million different ways of talking about it.
Another suggestion is to study different oratorical styles, so you can adopt one or another when the audience seems to require it. You already see the appeal of the “demagogue haranguing the proletariat” style. MLKJr. was another style - the black preacher “I have seen the Promised Land” style.
Another good study tool is to compare different people in the same situation, and try to find out why one worked and the other didn’t. Check out Obama and Romney in their first debate - Romney clearly won. Try to figure out why. Or maybe Reagan vs. Carter, in their debates. Reagan was slightly ahead in the polls, they debated, and then Reagan clobbered him. Obviously all these are examples of events for which the participants prepared extensively, but it doesn’t show. Work on that.
If you want to win debates in the popular mind, you need to set and control the agenda. Don’t talk about what your opponent wants to talk about - stick to your message.
Sincerity is everything, as they say - once you learn to fake that, you got it made.
The key to public speaking is communication. It’s not just knowing what your message is. It’s knowing how to convey it to people. To speak so that people will listen to what you’re saying.
If you don’t care if people are listening to you, then your path is easy. You can just go home and deliver speeches in your bathroom with nobody else around. Your disinterest in whether people are listening to your message relieves you of the need for an audience.
But if you’re looking to do something more than just engage in the physical act of speech - if you want to actually spread a message - then you need to start thinking about your audience and how they feel.
I don’t agree with those who say that the simple Godwinian method is all you need to be persuasive as long as you are good enough at it. If you do not have at least a plausible thesis, address problems the audience feels a need for, and provide real solutions at least in their minds, you will come off looking like a fool.
Witness Pastor Martin Ssempa. You can’t deny that he starts off very meek in stating a problem, becomes incensed and angry then finally shouts “IS THERE A HUMAN RIGHT TO EAT THE POO POO?” I don’t see him as particularly persuasive in his argument.
So it can work in borderline cases. Those who have not been exposed to the OP’s arguments it might work on, but those who have will not be roused and may in fact be turned off by seemingly inapprpriate passion.
Just as he has failed as a public writer. Ideological purity uber alles will get him oh so far in life. I just like watching when reality clobbers people like that right in their dogma.
For OTHER PEOPLE, allow me to elaborate - every meeting has Table Topics, wherein the Topicsmaster gives prompts on a theme and picks people who have to stand up and give 1-2 minute speeches to the prompt.
On the other hand, our club is subsidized by my employer, and my boss twisted my arm to join, and you better bring your own fun because there is no free range fun and in fact I suspect this thing was indeed designed by Der Fuhrer. It is so antifun that I can’t even fun talking about it.
Obviously, I don’t want to alienate my audiences, but, if I have a certain viewpoint, i’m not going to deceive or lie about it. If someone asked me who I believed the greatest orator was, as someone said a few posts ago, I would say Hitler. Whether people liked it or not, that’s the truth. I want to capture the minds and hearts of my audiences, but not through deception or lying.
Yes, I said above that one of the speakers I also study is Malcolm X. People completely ignored that, though. I read his autobiography last summer.
Yes, after Hitler’s style, MLK Jr. is a close second, in my opinion. His resonance, tempo, and emphasis on certain words really separated him from other speakers. He spoke with such resonance that his voice literally trembled (in a good way that added volumes to his speeches).
You not being able to admit that Hitler was a great speaker just makes you naive. He was a piece of shit person, but if you are implying that he was not an amazing speaker, you’re foolish. Don’t be ridiculous.
Rev, I think that you are facing a problem of ideology.
To be perfectly blunt: You CANNOT BE IDEALISTIC, 100% HONEST, and be a great speaker.
Why? You ask.
I’ll tell you why. Because YOU don’t decide whether you are a great speaker. History does. And history looks at the AUDIENCE and how the speeches were received.
Lets use this thread as an example.
First, you brought up Hitler. I’m going to buck public opinion and call that a good initial move. You got attention, you galvanized the opinions of your audience, and got people invested in paying attention to you.
The follow-through isn’t doing so well. Now people are disregarding you, openly mocking you, and even the few who were invested and engaged in a debate with you have lost interest and moved on to cheap shots.
Why is that?
Figuring out what caused that transition to happen so quickly is your next step in learning to be a good speaker. I’ll offer you a hint. Re-read the sentence in all-caps above.
Your “Hitler as a great speaker rant” is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. He really wasn’t as great as you think when you consider the circumstances of his “great speeches.”
If you really have a lisp, go to a speech therapist. And if you want to be a great public speaker, just focus all of your attention to study of Hitler. You’ll be a smash wherever you speak.
I think the OP should tell us one more time that he’s saving for something and then not tell us what. Again. Because we all know that he’s dying to put that out there. Again.
As noted, speakers - halfway decent ones, let alone great ones - have to think about their audience. As a middle ground, have you at least considered learning to use tact?
Hell, his very own favorite speaker did just that – played on his audience’s moods and fears. Hitler didn’t get where he was just stating what he believed 100%. You need to understand what things were like in Germany in the 1930s to understand how Hitler became so popular. (Hint: it wasn’t his oratory skills, kiddo)