I think that the speaker, Phil Davison was speaking to his audience, even though he may have had a very odd way of doing so by shouting at them. However, they are still the people he is talking to. He is speaking with conviction in this speech because he is trying to persuade Americans to vote for him as Stark County Treasurer. It is persuaded in this clip by Davison giving his opinion on how the treasurer office needs "structure and guidance" in order to fix it. His eye contact is not very good, he looks down at his note cards a lot and makes mistakes. His body languages involves many hand motions and pacing back and forth. There is not really any "effective" pauses in this speech. This speech really was not meant to consist of humor, but by the way he was presenting it made it humorous. Example, he says " I have a master degree in communication" when he didn't do a very good job giving the speech. I think this was a hilarious clip because he wants to represent a county and win treasurer office, but from the way he is shouting to his audience and making mistakes, shows that he will most likely not win... which he didn't.
I agree with Kayla, except I believe Phil Davidson did a magnificent job with eye contact and involving his audience. The audience couldn't help but to be captivated by his flawless presentation of his speech. besides, he has a masters degree in communication.
As far as Phil Davidson's speech, I think that he could have done a lot better. I think that though he is speaking to his audience, he is not actually speaking to them. His tone and the volume of his voice seems to better serve a coach or a drill sergeant. He speech topic is appropriate for his audience, however the way that he is delivering it is not appropriate. I would give him a 0/5 in this section. Despite the blunder in his deliverance of the speech, Phil Davidson did speak with a lot of conviction. This was seen through the raising of his voice to a almost terrifying level, and through the fact that he was sure that he would make the treasurer's position better if elected. Although the conviction, in my opinion, was brought across incorrectly, he still had that conviction, so he would earn a 5/5 in this section. His body language was a disaster. His movements such as when he said the word "tool" (at 4:37) were over emphasized and dramatized, making it cheesy and almost comical when it should not have come across that way. His pacing back and forth came off hostile and, at least to me, made it less appealing to vote in his favor. His eye contact was awful as well. Phil Davidson did look out at his audience and hold eye contact with the members of the audience a little, but he kept having to look down at his notes and read them before continuing what he was saying. He was not glancing at his notes, he was reading them! His eye contact was brief compared to the time he spent looking at his notes. I would give him a 0/5 in this category. The time he took to pause was not effective. Davidson would pause to look at his notes every couple sentences which made his speech choppy and less influencing. The only things that were humorous about the speech were not supposed to be taken as humorous, it just came across that way because of his overemphasized body language and tone. (Like the motions he made when he said "but as a weapon" at 4:41 and when he was saying "political subdivision" at 4:20). Davidson was actually trying to deliver a serious speech, not a humorous one. Again, he would be awarded a 0/5 by me. Over all, I did not like his speech at all. I found it cheesy and unpersuasive. The speech did not do what its intended purpose meant for it to do. The mess ups such as the one at 1:36- 1:54 when he messed up on one of his supposedly "most favorite quotes", took away from the speech as well by ruining the rhythm of the speech even more than the unnecessary pauses did. I was not persuaded to vote for him, in fact I was actually frightened by his speech. Had I actually been at the speech in person, I would have left with ringing ears, a headache, and a heart racing with adrenalin and fear. His tone was scary and aggressive and I don't know about anyone else, but that is not what I look for in a treasurer. Needless to say, it is no surprise to me that he did not win the nomination. Therefore he earns 0/5 in this category as well, making his over all grade a failing 5/25.
I agree with your take on Phil Davidson's speech. I think his choice of tone was innapropraite towards the audience. He could have came off a lot more calm, and he could of got his point across more clearly. I think he kind of scared his audience and made them lose interest.
His tone of voice is not all that appropriate for this type of speech or audience, he got his point across but could have been done a different way. Him screaming at his audience more then likely frightened little children and the others listening to him. He was probably under the under influence of some sort of illegal drug
I also agree with your view on Phil Davidson's speech, I think that he was very aggressive and his tone of voice was not the best. I feel as if he would have been more calm he would have done a better job at getting his point across without losing the interest of his audience.
I also agree with your view on Phil Davidson's speech. I believe he was too aggressive and too loud for a topic that didn't need to be yelled. If he had been more calm and made his point more clear without shouting, he would've came off as more appealing to his audience. Instead, he lost the audience's interest and made a fool out of himself.
I believe that Mr. Davidson's tone was out of hand due to his emotions running wild. Giving a speech in front of everyone made him very nervous so he was unable to control himself. He was unable to get his point across because the audience was to wrapped up with his antics.
I agree with Caitlyn's opinion on the speech. I agree that his approach to the audience was something like a "drill sergeant" or "coach". It seemed as if he was unnecessarily yelling to the audience. It was hard to understand his points he was trying to make due to his tone. For what he was arguing his tone did not seem like it was appropriate. He wanted to get people to vote for him, however the way he presented his speech created people to have mixed feelings about him.
In my opinion, his tone was completely unnecessary. He could have gotten the same exact point across without his obnoxious tone. I think that if he approached his audience with a softer tone, they would have been able to understand his point of view a bit more clearly. If he had a more appropriate tone, his chance at getting a job in office would have been much higher.
I agree that Mr. Davidon's speech was not appropriate for that occasion. His tone was too angry and out of hand. He could not get his point across because he was too out of control to be taken seriously. The people listening to him were probably frightened and did not like his tone or the way he was screaming. The audience paid more attention to the crazy way he was acting than what his actual point was.
I agree with these comments. He knew what he was talking about and had a lot of heart, but he let himself get out of control. This ended up becoming his downfall as it really ruined his presentation and made his audience think that he was crazy. His frequent mess-ups and ridiculous presentation ruined this speech.
I feel as it was not necessary for him to speak in that tone. He didn't have great eye contact but he still spoke to his audience in a very weird way of expressing his emotions. He messed up a lot and constantly was looking at his note cards. I don't think this was a good speech at all and his tone of words he was using made the speech terrible.
I agree that Davidsons speech was too aggressive. He made the eye contact needed but his tone towards the audience was unnecessary. His emotions and actions made it sure that he willing wanted the role as Stark County Treasurer but his actions within the speech made it hard for the audience to vote for him. Davidson was so into his speech he kept forgetting or messing up the words and kept looking at his notes to make himself clear but he could of done it in a much more of an appropriate manner way.
i agree that he used the wrong tone when talking to his audiance and didnt speak to them properly. he was to aggresive and had to many emotions going through his head. it was also very hard to focus on what he was saying because of all of his movments and he also didnt know his speech and even forgot a quote he was trying to say. by being so gitery it was hard to even listen to his words. i dont think he got his point acrosed to his audiance
Davidson was very aggressive towards his audience. i thought he made good eye contact but his tone of voice wasnt needed. it was hard to hear what he was saying because he basically screamed the whole time, and i think this made less people wanting to vote for him. davidson also would forget his speech because he would move around to much. i think he could have presented his speech in a better and calmer way.
The speaker wanted to get his point across and i believe he did but the manner in which he gave his point was not a very skillful and correct way. The fact that he majored in speaking did not show, both Kayla and Caitlyn make good points on what Davidson did wrong. His entire speech was probably wrong except he had done a great job being loud enough for his audience to hear him. I dont know if he could have gotten any louder!
In my opinion, the speaker was too dependent on his emotions to give his speech instead of using his words. Davidson was too aggressive and "in the face" of his audience, having this presence can and will cause the audience to zone out and/or not respect the speaker. Instead of focusing on his points and thoughts the audience is more intrigued by his ridiculous body language and voice volume.
While he certainly kept the audience engaged, it was in the completely wrong way. In doing so, his objective was completely lost and people were focusing more on his delivery as opposed to the reasons people should vote for him. And even if his reasons were valid, no one would believe them with his aggressive overtone.
This speech was a complete mess, his eye contact, tone, and body movement sent the opposite message than the one he was trying to convey, resulting in a never ending embarrassment. This speech is a classic example of what goes wrong when a speech speaker is ill prepared, nervous, and dealing with it all in the wrong way.
I think that the speaker, Phil Davison was speaking to his audience, even though he may have had a very odd way of doing so by shouting at them. However, they are still the people he is talking to. He is speaking with conviction in this speech because he is trying to persuade Americans to vote for him as Stark County Treasurer. It is persuaded in this clip by Davison giving his opinion on how the treasurer office needs "structure and guidance" in order to fix it. His eye contact is not very good, he looks down at his note cards a lot and makes mistakes. His body languages involves many hand motions and pacing back and forth. There is not really any "effective" pauses in this speech. This speech really was not meant to consist of humor, but by the way he was presenting it made it humorous. Example, he says " I have a master degree in communication" when he didn't do a very good job giving the speech. I think this was a hilarious clip because he wants to represent a county and win treasurer office, but from the way he is shouting to his audience and making mistakes, shows that he will most likely not win... which he didn't.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kayla, except I believe Phil Davidson did a magnificent job with eye contact and involving his audience. The audience couldn't help but to be captivated by his flawless presentation of his speech. besides, he has a masters degree in communication.
DeleteAs far as Phil Davidson's speech, I think that he could have done a lot better. I think that though he is speaking to his audience, he is not actually speaking to them. His tone and the volume of his voice seems to better serve a coach or a drill sergeant. He speech topic is appropriate for his audience, however the way that he is delivering it is not appropriate. I would give him a 0/5 in this section. Despite the blunder in his deliverance of the speech, Phil Davidson did speak with a lot of conviction. This was seen through the raising of his voice to a almost terrifying level, and through the fact that he was sure that he would make the treasurer's position better if elected. Although the conviction, in my opinion, was brought across incorrectly, he still had that conviction, so he would earn a 5/5 in this section. His body language was a disaster. His movements such as when he said the word "tool" (at 4:37) were over emphasized and dramatized, making it cheesy and almost comical when it should not have come across that way. His pacing back and forth came off hostile and, at least to me, made it less appealing to vote in his favor. His eye contact was awful as well. Phil Davidson did look out at his audience and hold eye contact with the members of the audience a little, but he kept having to look down at his notes and read them before continuing what he was saying. He was not glancing at his notes, he was reading them! His eye contact was brief compared to the time he spent looking at his notes. I would give him a 0/5 in this category. The time he took to pause was not effective. Davidson would pause to look at his notes every couple sentences which made his speech choppy and less influencing. The only things that were humorous about the speech were not supposed to be taken as humorous, it just came across that way because of his overemphasized body language and tone. (Like the motions he made when he said "but as a weapon" at 4:41 and when he was saying "political subdivision" at 4:20). Davidson was actually trying to deliver a serious speech, not a humorous one. Again, he would be awarded a 0/5 by me. Over all, I did not like his speech at all. I found it cheesy and unpersuasive. The speech did not do what its intended purpose meant for it to do. The mess ups such as the one at 1:36- 1:54 when he messed up on one of his supposedly "most favorite quotes", took away from the speech as well by ruining the rhythm of the speech even more than the unnecessary pauses did. I was not persuaded to vote for him, in fact I was actually frightened by his speech. Had I actually been at the speech in person, I would have left with ringing ears, a headache, and a heart racing with adrenalin and fear. His tone was scary and aggressive and I don't know about anyone else, but that is not what I look for in a treasurer. Needless to say, it is no surprise to me that he did not win the nomination. Therefore he earns 0/5 in this category as well, making his over all grade a failing 5/25.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your take on Phil Davidson's speech. I think his choice of tone was innapropraite towards the audience. He could have came off a lot more calm, and he could of got his point across more clearly. I think he kind of scared his audience and made them lose interest.
DeleteHis tone of voice is not all that appropriate for this type of speech or audience, he got his point across but could have been done a different way. Him screaming at his audience more then likely frightened little children and the others listening to him. He was probably under the under influence of some sort of illegal drug
DeleteI also agree with your view on Phil Davidson's speech, I think that he was very aggressive and his tone of voice was not the best. I feel as if he would have been more calm he would have done a better job at getting his point across without losing the interest of his audience.
DeleteI also agree with your view on Phil Davidson's speech. I believe he was too aggressive and too loud for a topic that didn't need to be yelled. If he had been more calm and made his point more clear without shouting, he would've came off as more appealing to his audience. Instead, he lost the audience's interest and made a fool out of himself.
DeleteI believe that Mr. Davidson's tone was out of hand due to his emotions running wild. Giving a speech in front of everyone made him very nervous so he was unable to control himself. He was unable to get his point across because the audience was to wrapped up with his antics.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caitlyn's opinion on the speech. I agree that his approach to the audience was something like a "drill sergeant" or "coach". It seemed as if he was unnecessarily yelling to the audience. It was hard to understand his points he was trying to make due to his tone. For what he was arguing his tone did not seem like it was appropriate. He wanted to get people to vote for him, however the way he presented his speech created people to have mixed feelings about him.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, his tone was completely unnecessary. He could have gotten the same exact point across without his obnoxious tone. I think that if he approached his audience with a softer tone, they would have been able to understand his point of view a bit more clearly. If he had a more appropriate tone, his chance at getting a job in office would have been much higher.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mr. Davidon's speech was not appropriate for that occasion. His tone was too angry and out of hand. He could not get his point across because he was too out of control to be taken seriously. The people listening to him were probably frightened and did not like his tone or the way he was screaming. The audience paid more attention to the crazy way he was acting than what his actual point was.
ReplyDeleteI agree with these comments. He knew what he was talking about and had a lot of heart, but he let himself get out of control. This ended up becoming his downfall as it really ruined his presentation and made his audience think that he was crazy. His frequent mess-ups and ridiculous presentation ruined this speech.
ReplyDeleteI feel as it was not necessary for him to speak in that tone. He didn't have great eye contact but he still spoke to his audience in a very weird way of expressing his emotions. He messed up a lot and constantly was looking at his note cards. I don't think this was a good speech at all and his tone of words he was using made the speech terrible.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Davidsons speech was too aggressive. He made the eye contact needed but his tone towards the audience was unnecessary. His emotions and actions made it sure that he willing wanted the role as Stark County Treasurer but his actions within the speech made it hard for the audience to vote for him. Davidson was so into his speech he kept forgetting or messing up the words and kept looking at his notes to make himself clear but he could of done it in a much more of an appropriate manner way.
ReplyDeletei agree that he used the wrong tone when talking to his audiance and didnt speak to them properly. he was to aggresive and had to many emotions going through his head. it was also very hard to focus on what he was saying because of all of his movments and he also didnt know his speech and even forgot a quote he was trying to say. by being so gitery it was hard to even listen to his words. i dont think he got his point acrosed to his audiance
ReplyDeleteDavidson was very aggressive towards his audience. i thought he made good eye contact but his tone of voice wasnt needed. it was hard to hear what he was saying because he basically screamed the whole time, and i think this made less people wanting to vote for him. davidson also would forget his speech because he would move around to much. i think he could have presented his speech in a better and calmer way.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker wanted to get his point across and i believe he did but the manner in which he gave his point was not a very skillful and correct way. The fact that he majored in speaking did not show, both Kayla and Caitlyn make good points on what Davidson did wrong. His entire speech was probably wrong except he had done a great job being loud enough for his audience to hear him. I dont know if he could have gotten any louder!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the speaker was too dependent on his emotions to give his speech instead of using his words. Davidson was too aggressive and "in the face" of his audience, having this presence can and will cause the audience to zone out and/or not respect the speaker. Instead of focusing on his points and thoughts the audience is more intrigued by his ridiculous body language and voice volume.
ReplyDeleteWhile he certainly kept the audience engaged, it was in the completely wrong way. In doing so, his objective was completely lost and people were focusing more on his delivery as opposed to the reasons people should vote for him. And even if his reasons were valid, no one would believe them with his aggressive overtone.
ReplyDeleteThis speech was a complete mess, his eye contact, tone, and body movement sent the opposite message than the one he was trying to convey, resulting in a never ending embarrassment. This speech is a classic example of what goes wrong when a speech speaker is ill prepared, nervous, and dealing with it all in the wrong way.
ReplyDelete