Definition of "good speech"

Hello, my teacher and I had the day a debate over whether Hitler was a "good speaker" is. She believes he is not, I am convinced, however, that he was one.

Well, after a long exchange our opinions, I have made the decision to make a presentation / lecture on that topic.

I wanted to start with the definition of a good speech, the unit, but after a long search, I still have not found a suitable result.

If I now a helpful user might share his definition of a good speech and this can be provided for the documents with names, it would be a great help.

MfG

(Ps: Who lust, can me times indeed share his opinion on the subject in the survey.)

The best answer

You must primarily to be a good speaker, the brain and at the same time appeal to the heart, which is very important. Logic alone is not enough, special if you abverlangst people something, such as war, poverty, disease and all the drama. You have to appeal to the feelings, in there have to ring thing, then you have it already persuades, no matter if your arguments are thin edge, you need to appeal to their eggs, there where it hurts and is good for. He must have been a good speaker, I do not know any of his speeches, but all men are have done the heinous acts on everyone's lips, not good, but the Boesen who Massenmoerder that there are on which we remember. All the best!

I think part of a good speech

- Self-confidence

- argumentation

- Persuasion

In fact Hitler was a good speaker, it would become even more than half of Germany on his side. At the end one can question such things, of course. It does not change his actions, but all in all it was a good speaker, since the majority of the German people believed until the end of the war, one could win him (the war) yet. Had he stood before the people and would have stuttered "Maybe we can still win the war, the enemy is really strong and our troops very vulnerable" he would probably get no support.

To define:

For me, a good speech, when people say at the end: "He could be right" or to deal with the issue and possibly change their own opinion. These speakers must have a lot of self-esteem and confidence. You must act confidently and should show no fear. This alone makes a big step to persuasion succeeded in doing what is ultimately the real meaning and the real object of speech, which is to convince people. This requires of course a good argument. You have to try, with good arguments to surpass the enemy. Only someone who has done the better persuasion at the end, is a good speaker.

Good luck with your presentation!

Ps .: The text above is only my own opinion!

Did he inspires people? Yes, he has. Ergo, he was a good speaker. The aim of the "good" speech is to convey to the audience his message and bring the people behind them. He has skillfully doubt. Your teacher should explain why it is there disagreed times. Presumably this Refllex because they reject the content. As they should, however, be able to differentiate.

I do not think he was a good speaker, he was having too impulsive and just wanted to provoke.

For me, a speech from: Man is tied, there are no empty words, it shall be reported that the speaker gives one the opportunity to present themselves to form their own opinion. A speech remains in one's memory, you can always quote something from it, "I have a dream", good example, although I do not necessarily found the speech level.

Good luck with your presentation.

I think the opinions about such a definition go there apart. Find a good, if the speaker is likeable and ultimately their opinion confirmed the others want a systematic development with analyzes and facts (or information, which are sold as facts), to convince with the aim of the critical listener.

Personally, I think the latter for a "good" speech. A familiar example is the famous speech by Goebbels (Do you want total war ???). He wants namely convince not only the people but also Hitler himself, and must go all out for it.

The man had charisma and has almost every "trick" used. And an orator without charisma is only half.

In my opinion, he was even better than Goebbels.

I also find the Hitler a good speaker but was just a bad person. Unfortunately I am not a good speaker itself.

Hello, my teacher and I had the day a debate over whether Hitler was a "good speaker" sei.Sie believes he is not, I am convinced, however, that he was one.

He was a screamer, but this was the fact that he as a speaker had no microphone is available at the beginning of his time. In today bawlers I do not apologize this.

Well, after a long exchange our opinions, I have made the decision to make a presentation / lecture on that topic.

Very good!

I wanted to start with the definition of a good speech, the unit, but after a long search, I still have not found a suitable result.

Tucholsky, as already suggested.

If I now a helpful user might share his definition of a good speech and this can be provided for the documents with names, it would be a great help.

http://www.rhetorik.ch/Tucholsky/Gut.html

(Ps: Who lust, can me times indeed share his opinion on the subject in the survey.)

Done, good speaker, even though I disagree with him violently content.

Sure he was a good speaker. He was convincing, he influenced the masses ..... Its aims and views do not detract from his rhetorical skills yes ......

Just read Tucholsky text: "advice for a GOOD speakers" - or no less brilliant his satire: "advice for a BAD speakers". Then you have collected all the criteria of a good speech!

Of course Hitler was a brilliant speaker! How else would he have to "convince" But millions can!

pk

Date: 2012-11-13 Views: 0

Related articles

Links

Domicile|Sante|

Copyright (C) 2019 m3tch.com, All Rights Reserved.

M3tch all rights reserved.

processed in 0.178 (s). 9 q(s)