In my future endeavors, I think I will feel more confident in my writing because I won't be afraid to share it as much. Speaking and writing are such completely different experiences; I can feel confident with what I've written, but I'll be too afraid to read it out loud, mostly because I was a lousy speaker. I'm going to be able to give impromptu speeches if need be because the extemporaneous style we've used will have given me the tools to do that. The profession I'm trying to go into doesn't require too much speaking, but just the daily, social interactions of life - that's what I'll use the lessons from this class for. I'll be more conscious of audience and citations. My friends like to debate a lot and so I think this class will help me prove my points. 

Favorite

The demonstration speech was my favorite because I liked the visual aid aspect. I did "How to Solve a Rubik's Cube," but I planned to make it a little quirky. The consequentialist approach was something that I came up with during my research and it ended up working really well with the formatting of the speech. It wasn't one of my better grades because I neglected to verbally cite my sources, but I never forgot from that speech on so I suppose it was better that I learned then rather than later. I also really enjoyed watching everyone else demonstrate their speech. The hands on approach seemed to alleviate some of the awkwardness - we were able to lead into it and then preform. Doing something with your hands - especially something that you know how to do - helps the extemporaneous process. It wasn't a particularly technical speech and I was working with something that people tend to have at least some familiarity with. I didn't have to define scientific terms or any of the other things you have to do with, for example, the persuasive speech or informative speech. It was just fun - to go up there, talk about a product that I sell at my toy store, and give a playful speech that I felt comfortable talking about. So that was my favorite speech - because it was easy, fun, and less awkward than all of the rest.

Debates

At the toy store I work at, political debates are quotidian distractions. Half of us are liberals; the other half are conservatives. We all get along perfectly well, but we like to discuss our differences. In a more recent instance, I recall talking to my coworker, going on tangents, and eventually coming to the subject of environmentalism - specifically, global warming. I'm usually very passive about my opinions and open to other perspectives, but global warming is an issue that I refuse to stand down on. 
When my coworker began citing his own personal hypotheses about the "true" nature of global warming, I got annoyed. He didn't have sources for his opinion - merely latent concepts he adopted from what he heard at the dinner table with his highly conservative family. He didn't rely upon logos, pathos, or ethos - he was simply borrowing ideas and asserting them as facts. 
In my own demure fashion, I made a series of rebuttals to his arguments. The difference between our styles of reasoning was distinct - I had sources. When I  do decide to voice my opinion, I make sure that I have a sizable arsenal of facts and objective references. I wasn't citing some amateur correspondant from leftist media sources, I offered university-backed research, expert analyses, and, at one point, I even broke out my laptop to present a visual aid when the discussion turned to the human vs. nature debate on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I used logical reasoning exclusively.
In the end... he still fundamentally disagreed with me, but didn't want to discuss it anymore. In our debate-happy toy story, that typically means I won that day. 

Flickr on Sexist Language

The Flickr thread started off with one person making a fair point about the use of certain language in tagging pictures. In particular, the commenter honed in on the word "girl" and explained why that word was offensive to adult women. The first person to respond was, coincidentally, an adult women who felt indifferent to the use of that word and backed up her defense by pointing out the arbitrary nature of words (which the textbook also discusses). The respondent was supplemented by a series of other comments, which went on to prove that language is relative. One recurring example came from the UK where the word "girl" and "boy" have no negative connotation. It isn't gender neutral, but it is inoffensive according to those with an English background. "What's next?" the commenter's begged. What words should be tossed out for the sake of political correctness? The opposition tended to agree with the first part of the textbook; the part that described language in and of itself. Yes, language is arbitrary. Yes, language is ambiguous. Yes, language is abstract. But they also tended to disagree with the latter part of the textbook; the part that discussed language through the context of culture and gender and so forth. By putting limitations on language, the commenters insisted that any perceived offensive would become inherent: in other words, by turning certain language into forbidden fruit, it became more tempting and inherited negative qualities as a consequence. In my opinion, language should be used at the discretion of the writer/speaker. If you want to use racy language - use it, but be prepared for the fallout. And if you're making a speech, chance are that you shouldn't use racy language because you don't want to ostracize any members of your audience. It's a simple matter of discretion that I think the Flick thread did a good job of exemplifying.

Chapter 11

The textbook did a fine job setting boundaries for presentation media. It went through various digital and traditional options and emphasized the importance of clarity. I was actually surprised by how up-to-date this textbook was as far as technology and digital media went. The author provided tips and pointers about how to make the most of your media while also warning the readers of some common errors such as superfluous text, obnoxious fonts, and all of the other possible distractions associated with digital media (i.e. powerpoints). However, I’m not sure that I agree with the author about audio media. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a speech where audio has been utilized effectively. In my experience, audio is more distracting than its visual counterpoint because it directly interferes with what the speaker is vocally saying. Ideally, the audio could be used to “set a mood,” but that’s a tricky task. Much of the time, background music is effective at doing one of two things: lulling an audience to sleep or making the speech sound corny and forced. I’m open to the possibility that audio could enhance the speech’s effectiveness, but until I’ve seen it done, I don’t quite believe it. 

Apple Release Speech Critique

I didn’t necessarily “attend” the iPhone 5 release speech in San Francisco the other month, but I did watch a live broadcast, so I think that counts for something. Also, it should be noted, I’m not a huge apple fan boy – I have an Android – but there’s always so much buzz and controversy about the release that I felt compelled to watch it. Apple products are famous, in part, for their aesthetics, so it’s only natural that their release would coalesce striking visual media into the unveiling. While the speaker did a great job of communicating the significance of each innovative tweak, the media offered elements the speech couldn’t: aesthetic appeal and visual examples of how the new features worked. The media set the tone for the release. It was smooth, slick, futuristic, and minimalist. As the speaker went through his speech, the media changed to reflect the topics. Sometimes it was just a static image of the new phone and other times it was animated. The screen would display a virtual menu and would go through new programs and features just as the consumer would when the phone was available for purchase. The effectiveness of this process was the only distraction. I know that sounds contradictory, but what I mean to say is that the media was so interesting and pertinent to the speech that it was hard to decide which to pay attention to, the screen or the speech. I didn’t see much room for improvement as far as presentation goes. 

Presentation Media

Presentation media allows speakers to communicate their ideas without verbally stating them. It is a useful tool that can help audiences connect to the subject and draw from a larger pool of information than that offered by only the speaker. At the same time that it can be useful, however, there are some aspects of presentation media that speakers should be weary of. For example, digital media (i.e. photos and audio clips) can be manipulated and altered in order to present subjects from biased perspectives. It is the speaker's responsibility to research the media that they choose to include. The best way to ensure that your media is unaltered is to extract it from the original source. If the original source is lost in the sea of digital information, critical discretion should be heeded. Does the photo portray the subject in a negative light? Is it an objective portrayal of the subject or is there evidence of bias? It should be fairly simple to determine by asking questions like these, but it isn't a foolproof method. Also remember context and ask yourself questions about it. When using audio clips, for example, be sure to listen to the entire dialogue so as not to misrepresent the person speaking in the clip. If the clip seems to be taken out of context, it is the speaker's ethical responsibility to avoid it and use something that presents their subject in a more objective light.