UnderseaLcpl
07-17-09, 01:25 AM
I hate to make a post out of this, but I'm running short on time and options.
Basically, I have to complete the assignment detailed below by midnight tomorrow.
As you can see, I already composed a response, but I'm a little worried about whether or not it is appropriate. Worse, none of my roommates are around to look at it, and the one friend I have on this street had nothing to say other than a series of queries as to the meaning of words like "indubitably" and (incredibly enough) "proclamations", which she pronounced as prokle-may-tie-uns". After that, she was only interested in watching TVO'ed episodes of House, so I need a little help here.
I intended for it to be kind of funny, whilst still adhering to the criterion specified in the assignment, but did I go too far? Is it offensive? Is it even funny at all? Does it answer the questions satisfactorily? Is it formal enough for an academic forum without being crude?
Normally, I wouldn't even bother wasting everyone's time by asking for peer review but this assignment alone is worth 10% of the overall grade. Be merciless in your assessments, nothing you say is going to hurt my feelings, but please be honest and generous with suggestions.
Thanks in advance for any advice.:salute:
Consider historical or contemporary figures that are or were effective and persuasive
communicators, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, President John F. Kennedy, First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt, President Ronald Reagan, Dr. Maya Angelou, President Bill Clinton,
Oprah Winfrey, and so on.
Locate and watch a video of a persuasive speech given by one of these figures (or by
another of your choice) before addressing the questions below. To locate a video, use a
search engine such as Google or ask.com and enter a phrase similar to the following:
“Dr. Martin Luther King moving speech video”
“Videos of Kennedy presidential speeches”
“Reagan video clip archives”
“Eleanor Roosevelt video address”
• Due Date: Day 4 [Main] forum
• Post your response to the following: Which speech did you watch? What kind of body
language did the speaker use to make the speech persuasive? Provide an example.
Would a written version of the message be less persuasive? Why or why not? How can a
writer create a persuasive message without the use of body language? What word choice
and tone did the speaker use? What was the effect? Did he or she use logic or emotion
to persuade the audience? Provide an example. Did you find the speech persuasive?
Why or why not?
When you post your response, please provide the URL for the speech you watched.
Sources;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFR3LhoNQOc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFR3LhoNQOc)
and even better.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sthm3vH6ixY
Persuasive speaking is a powerful art, and few people so clearly exemplify its' potency as the likes of Toufik Benedictus Hinn, often referred to as "Benny" Hinn.
Above are links to Benny's more usual, and more exotic, performances respectively. Hinn's use of body language is readily apparent in both. Powerful, decisive gestures and a confident stance that conveys utter conviction are his tools. Aside from the occassional sweep of the hand that actually makes people fall over and/or suffer an epileptic seizure, Hinn uses very direct pointing gestures and brief but focused stares. The latter is an essential implement in Hinn's favored method of delivery, but solid eye contact and visually engaging the audience are indispensable practices in many types of persuasive speaking.
Whether this brand of speech would work well in a written format is difficulty to say. Mr. Hinn is a pretty widely-read author, so I assume that most of his message survives the transition to text, but I have a hard time imagining someone reading his books with their arms stretched above their heads or collapsing after reading a particularly righteous paragraph. Given the greater depth that one can go into when writing a book or article on a subject as opposed to speaking about it, I would not go so far as to say that Hinn's works would be less persuasive, though they are indubitably less dramatic.
Next, we must consider Hinn's specific use of verbiage and tone. The tone is unmistakably energetic and full of unshakeable belief. Come to think of it, the word belief itself is used repeatedly in the first speech. Conviction might be a better word, though I already used it once. Nonetheless, I lack an acceptable substitute, so conviction it is. His tone is one of unshakeable conviction. That is to be expected in any kind of fire-and-brimstone religious message, but his choice of words is where things begin to get interesting. Note that Hinn uses the word power about two dozen times in the first speech, and at one point he just keeps repeating the word. In this particular context, he is promising holy power to those that "believe", another word he uses ad nauseum.
Therein lies the beauty of his message. Power to those that believe. Very simple, yet very effective, and the repetition enforces the message. Of course, one cannot just go about repeating whatever they feel like saying and hoping that it will stick. The timing of Hinn's repetitions is also important. They always come after a particularly profound statement and are usually accompanied by a gratuitous increase in volume.
Hinn, however, is not a one-trick pony. his technique extends far beyond the repetition of simple messages, as does his word usage. Amazingly enough, he uses a great deal of biblical terminology (imagine that!) and he does so with appropriate changes in tone. Words like "holy" and "salvation" and whatnot are almost sung, whilst words like "devil" and "evil" are almost hissed sometimes. If Benny Hinn could spit the word "devil", I'm sure he would. Considering all this, it is obvious that he is making an emotional appeal here, and the audience is certainly rife with emotion, further evidencing the fact. I cannot say if there is a logical aspect to his style at all. When it comes to religion, logic is very subjective. As a Presbyterian, I do not see any logic emanating from Hinn's general direction, but then Presbyterians pride themselves upon worshiping in the same way that one might stand in a battalion formation. It's all very serious stuff, you know. If God wanted us to wave our hands in the air like we just don't care, he'd have built his church on the West Side and we would pray on Friday night. There is also a distinct possibility that "40's" might be involved.
I jest, poorly, but I honestly cannot say if there is logic inherent in Hinn's approach. Not being a follower of that particular sect of Christianity, I have no perspective worth considering and no right to judge Hinn's logic or lack thereof. Logic or no, the effect of Hinn's speaking cannot be denied or misinterpreted. People cry, stretch their arms to the heavens, and momentarily lose their balance. Doubtless, there are some who consider his performance ridiculous, but one cannot argue with those results.
As stated above, I personally didn't find the speech persuasive because my faith, not to mention my skepticism, dissuade me from even considering most of Hinn's proclamations. Beyond that I can only say that I can appreciate how persuasive Hinn can evidently be. I have no doubt that his method of persuasive speaking would not work on many, but one cannot deny its' effectiveness upon the intended audience. That in itself is persuasion enough to give serious consideration to his methods, yes?
edit- I honestly dont care if this eventually becomes a debate about religion or a series of jokes, but some useful input would be nice.
Thanks again,
James
Basically, I have to complete the assignment detailed below by midnight tomorrow.
As you can see, I already composed a response, but I'm a little worried about whether or not it is appropriate. Worse, none of my roommates are around to look at it, and the one friend I have on this street had nothing to say other than a series of queries as to the meaning of words like "indubitably" and (incredibly enough) "proclamations", which she pronounced as prokle-may-tie-uns". After that, she was only interested in watching TVO'ed episodes of House, so I need a little help here.
I intended for it to be kind of funny, whilst still adhering to the criterion specified in the assignment, but did I go too far? Is it offensive? Is it even funny at all? Does it answer the questions satisfactorily? Is it formal enough for an academic forum without being crude?
Normally, I wouldn't even bother wasting everyone's time by asking for peer review but this assignment alone is worth 10% of the overall grade. Be merciless in your assessments, nothing you say is going to hurt my feelings, but please be honest and generous with suggestions.
Thanks in advance for any advice.:salute:
Consider historical or contemporary figures that are or were effective and persuasive
communicators, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, President John F. Kennedy, First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt, President Ronald Reagan, Dr. Maya Angelou, President Bill Clinton,
Oprah Winfrey, and so on.
Locate and watch a video of a persuasive speech given by one of these figures (or by
another of your choice) before addressing the questions below. To locate a video, use a
search engine such as Google or ask.com and enter a phrase similar to the following:
“Dr. Martin Luther King moving speech video”
“Videos of Kennedy presidential speeches”
“Reagan video clip archives”
“Eleanor Roosevelt video address”
• Due Date: Day 4 [Main] forum
• Post your response to the following: Which speech did you watch? What kind of body
language did the speaker use to make the speech persuasive? Provide an example.
Would a written version of the message be less persuasive? Why or why not? How can a
writer create a persuasive message without the use of body language? What word choice
and tone did the speaker use? What was the effect? Did he or she use logic or emotion
to persuade the audience? Provide an example. Did you find the speech persuasive?
Why or why not?
When you post your response, please provide the URL for the speech you watched.
Sources;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFR3LhoNQOc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFR3LhoNQOc)
and even better.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sthm3vH6ixY
Persuasive speaking is a powerful art, and few people so clearly exemplify its' potency as the likes of Toufik Benedictus Hinn, often referred to as "Benny" Hinn.
Above are links to Benny's more usual, and more exotic, performances respectively. Hinn's use of body language is readily apparent in both. Powerful, decisive gestures and a confident stance that conveys utter conviction are his tools. Aside from the occassional sweep of the hand that actually makes people fall over and/or suffer an epileptic seizure, Hinn uses very direct pointing gestures and brief but focused stares. The latter is an essential implement in Hinn's favored method of delivery, but solid eye contact and visually engaging the audience are indispensable practices in many types of persuasive speaking.
Whether this brand of speech would work well in a written format is difficulty to say. Mr. Hinn is a pretty widely-read author, so I assume that most of his message survives the transition to text, but I have a hard time imagining someone reading his books with their arms stretched above their heads or collapsing after reading a particularly righteous paragraph. Given the greater depth that one can go into when writing a book or article on a subject as opposed to speaking about it, I would not go so far as to say that Hinn's works would be less persuasive, though they are indubitably less dramatic.
Next, we must consider Hinn's specific use of verbiage and tone. The tone is unmistakably energetic and full of unshakeable belief. Come to think of it, the word belief itself is used repeatedly in the first speech. Conviction might be a better word, though I already used it once. Nonetheless, I lack an acceptable substitute, so conviction it is. His tone is one of unshakeable conviction. That is to be expected in any kind of fire-and-brimstone religious message, but his choice of words is where things begin to get interesting. Note that Hinn uses the word power about two dozen times in the first speech, and at one point he just keeps repeating the word. In this particular context, he is promising holy power to those that "believe", another word he uses ad nauseum.
Therein lies the beauty of his message. Power to those that believe. Very simple, yet very effective, and the repetition enforces the message. Of course, one cannot just go about repeating whatever they feel like saying and hoping that it will stick. The timing of Hinn's repetitions is also important. They always come after a particularly profound statement and are usually accompanied by a gratuitous increase in volume.
Hinn, however, is not a one-trick pony. his technique extends far beyond the repetition of simple messages, as does his word usage. Amazingly enough, he uses a great deal of biblical terminology (imagine that!) and he does so with appropriate changes in tone. Words like "holy" and "salvation" and whatnot are almost sung, whilst words like "devil" and "evil" are almost hissed sometimes. If Benny Hinn could spit the word "devil", I'm sure he would. Considering all this, it is obvious that he is making an emotional appeal here, and the audience is certainly rife with emotion, further evidencing the fact. I cannot say if there is a logical aspect to his style at all. When it comes to religion, logic is very subjective. As a Presbyterian, I do not see any logic emanating from Hinn's general direction, but then Presbyterians pride themselves upon worshiping in the same way that one might stand in a battalion formation. It's all very serious stuff, you know. If God wanted us to wave our hands in the air like we just don't care, he'd have built his church on the West Side and we would pray on Friday night. There is also a distinct possibility that "40's" might be involved.
I jest, poorly, but I honestly cannot say if there is logic inherent in Hinn's approach. Not being a follower of that particular sect of Christianity, I have no perspective worth considering and no right to judge Hinn's logic or lack thereof. Logic or no, the effect of Hinn's speaking cannot be denied or misinterpreted. People cry, stretch their arms to the heavens, and momentarily lose their balance. Doubtless, there are some who consider his performance ridiculous, but one cannot argue with those results.
As stated above, I personally didn't find the speech persuasive because my faith, not to mention my skepticism, dissuade me from even considering most of Hinn's proclamations. Beyond that I can only say that I can appreciate how persuasive Hinn can evidently be. I have no doubt that his method of persuasive speaking would not work on many, but one cannot deny its' effectiveness upon the intended audience. That in itself is persuasion enough to give serious consideration to his methods, yes?
edit- I honestly dont care if this eventually becomes a debate about religion or a series of jokes, but some useful input would be nice.
Thanks again,
James