For this discussion, you will answer in two labeled parts.
Part A:
Here is a small clip of my favorite speech of all time:
What did Jim do well in this speech? How did he connect with his audience? What techniques did he use to appeal to his audience?
Part B:
Find a speech on YouTube that you enjoy. This can be informative, persuasive, whatever type of speech you like. Post the link and answer the following questions:
What did the speaker do well in the speech? What techniques did they use to connect with their audience? Was there a specific method of organization they seemed to have followed? What made the intro and conclusion so effective? What kept your attention throughout the speech?
https://oer.galileo.usg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=communication-textbooks
(use two reference from textbook in link above)
This speech was incredibly effective in connecting with the audience due to a number of techniques that were used by the speaker throughout. Firstly, Les employed stories and personal anecdotes as tools to convey his message which allowed him to engage with the listeners on an emotional level while also making it easier for them to remember specific points (Yoder & Coriński, 2019). Furthermore, he repeated certain phrases and key words throughout in order to emphasize particular concepts such as “now is yours” or “all you have ever wanted” (Yoder & Coriński, 2019). He also made use of pauses and gestures in order to build suspense before delivering more powerful statements – furthering his appeal to audience members who might have been hesitant about taking action prior(Yoder & Coriński, 2019). The introduction was attention-grabbing from start – utilizing large rhetorical questions such as “what are you going do with your life?” -while the conclusion offered viewers a sense of closure via summarizing previous ideas and reiterating his call-to-action one last time (Yoder & Coriński, 2019)
Throughout this speech there seemed to be clear organizational flow which helped keep my attention until its end. Les began by addressing why we need motivation—laying out a problem—before moving onto discussing potential solutions involving our own individual power through self-belief and hard work (Alleyne et al., 2018). Following this he transitioned into presenting facts which could back up his claims while then transitioning once again into offering an emotional story near its close – furthering both its credibility as well as overall impact (Yoder & Corinikski 2019). As such then, this powerful presentation was able to effectively reach audiences following clear organizational principles guided largely by emotion..
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot m