Commentary -- Advocating a Position

Comments for Advocating a Position

This speech is very well done. Although it is unclear exactly what action the speaker advocates or who she thinks is responsible for addressing the current situation, she does a nice job both at laying out a case against Al Quaeda and at addressing the human costs of terrorism. Here are some more specific comments in chronological order:

good attention getter: by pausing for a couple seconds after saying the name "Kenneth Cumple," the speaker both draws attention to herself and establishes the fact that, even though she talks about geopolitics, her primary focus is on how those politics affect "real people."
nice also to refute audience expectations when she says "even if you think you don't know Kenneth Cumple, YOU DO…" this also flows nicely into the main question to be addressed.
good sourcing of statistics, quotes, and information throughout the speech. The speaker makes it clear that she has done the research and is speaking from a knowledgeable position.
nice preview of main points:

Speaker might have been more explicit in the transition to her first main point. She went right in to it after stating her third main point, and it may have been more effective to say something like "As I will show, each of these three points is important for understanding the situation in Afghanistan. First, …." This would have wrapped up the main points, illustrated the importance of each, and allowed the audience to mentally follow her into her first main point. still, this may or may not be important for some instructors.

nice transition between main point one and main point two
great strategy to return to the intro example as a way of binding the speech together. Also, the more a speaker can make her audience use the speech as its own referent, the better. Foreshadowing and review throughout the speech can serve to establish the authority of the speaker and the force of her argument.

Issues for the Instructor to Consider:

the speaker suggests that Al Quaeda is clearly culpable in various terrorist acts and in the killing of americans. This is still, however, an open question and not nearly all the facts are in. Instructors may want to spend some class time discussing how speakers can present information in a way which stays true to "the facts" (or lack of them) but doesn't automatically weaken their argument. Phrases like "Authorities suspect…." or "Current evidence suggests….." are effective ways to achieve this balance.
on a similar note, the speaker conflates Al Quaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. While one can be confident that there were some connections, this is another case where it is important for speakers to be made aware (by the instructor) of how relationships and attributions of guilt get implied throughout a speech even if the speaker doesn't mean to imply them.