2. The speech was on same sex marriages. He delivered a very convincing, well organized, and well thought out speech supporting same sex marriages. He started off telling the story of Martha Horn. This woman was a lesbian sick with diabetes, but her partner could not help her. Because our nation does not back same sex marriages she is not protected. She is treated as "a second class citizen of the law." Then he talked about how it is not matter of judgments or opinions of heterosexuals, it is really all about offering these people entitlements and equal right and protection. Attitudes have nothing to do with this. Then he went on to discuss George Bush's actions and opinions. Then he said but the law has left them unprotected. He talked about the way cultural history clouds our judgment and the rights are based on public policy. After discussing all the issues at hand and backing them up with relevant data and references, he began talking about the solutions. Me must not be passive. It takes being active to get anything accomplished. "We must change politicians' minds."
             3. The arguments and evidence used in the speaker's delivery were very convincing and attention getting. The evidence was definitely appropriate for the audience, the topic, and the occasion. The topic needed to be supported by sound evidence from journals, newspapers, magazine articles, and websites.
             4. The speaker looked very relaxed up on stage. His tone of voice was somewhat like a news reporter's voice. It did get a little monotone a times, but it was very controlled sounding. The pitch, clarity, rate, volume, and conversational quality were all excellent. He did a good job of walking and using the stage. I will say he was a little slumped when giving his speech. He also did a good job on eye contact, and I thought he could have stepped up facial expressions a little as compared to the others. He worked in several g
             ...