Editing Public Speaking (Summer 2019)/Advocacy Speech

The advocacy speech is quite different from the impromptu and ceremonial speeches. In the impromptu speech, you merely had to clearly explain your topic and argument. In the ceremonial speech, you had to highlight a value, but you didn’t need to move the audience to action. In the advocacy speech, your audience may know nothing about the topic or argument, so you must “make the case.” In making the case for your topic, you need to raise awareness about your topic by identifying a pressing problem, discussing appropriate solutions, and outlining specific steps that the audience can take to advance these solutions.

In so doing, you must be clear (the audience may have little to no existing knowledge); you must be convincing (you are trying to sway the audience that your argument is valid); and you must be compelling (you are trying to motivate the audience enough so that they want to take specific actions). The advocacy speech requires the clarity of the impromptu, the values of the ceremonial, plus a sense of style and presence.

== Objectives ==

After completing the advocacy speech, students should be able to:
* design compelling policy arguments using the stock issues.
* make interesting and appropriate calls to action
* arrange speeches in a compelling and congruent manner
* frame subjects strategically
* write and deliver a stylistically moving speech.
* design and deliver a speech with appropriate emotional and delivery variations and intensities
* perform ethos well, appearing confident and animated.
* avoid memory gaps, using notes appropriately
* speak confidently with appropriate rate, projection, movement, and vocal variety.
* adapt their delivery to account for a variety of environmental constraints and distractions. 

== Procedure/topics ==

The key thing is: does your topic allow you to talk about a policy problem, policy solutions, and doable calls to action? Those topics are specific.

Avoid broad topics and general social ills. I once had someone who wanted to do an advocacy speech on “being nicer.” This was too vague. I get the sentiment, but you want a topic that you can sink your teeth into and develop some hard arguments around. Topics like “be mindful” or “walk more” are generally too broad for this assignment. You are looking for broad issues that can be understood in a problem/solution/action format. 

Here are some general types of topics that work well. 

=== Option 1. Advocate for a change in policy ===
These can be calling for specific changes to how government works. In the US, reforming the electoral college is typically a good topic. There are good arguments for and against this. Raising the minimum wage is a broad topic that can be understood quickly.  

=== Option 2. Raise awareness about a problem ===
Maybe you want to raise awareness for an organization or an issue. Here you might be talking about a topic that calls for a general attitude change or awareness (e.g. “support oil fracking” or “support your local farmers”). I recently saw a good persuasive speech raising awareness about the decline in music education for young children.

=== Option 3. Advocate for an organization ===
You might argue for increasing funding or support for a specific non-profit group working to end a larger ill. I have had students argue, quite compellingly, for increased support for agencies working to end sex trafficking. You can think of yourself basically making the organization’s case for them.

== Requirements ==

=== You must develop an argument with congruent elements that raises audience awareness and motivates action ===
We can assume that the audience on red Square knows little or nothing about your topic. As such, you need to quickly and clearly make your case. You need to develop an argument that identifies problems and/or causes, outlines appropriate and congruent solutions to these problems, and spells out specific and realistic actions that the audience can take that can advance the stated solutions.

=== You must write a stylistically rich speech ===
You must write the speech through stylistic devices. Your rich writing style must meld with the argument you are advancing. You are not sprinkling one or two stylistically rich paragraphs here and there; rather, your entire argument is made in a stylistically rich way.

=== You must deliver the speech in an engaging manner ===
Though many sections of your speech are written out, you must deliver the speech in an engaging and dynamic manner. Your delivery should capitalize on the figures of style written into the argument. At a minimum, you need to deliver the speech with appropriate projection and presence for the space.

=== You must stay within the time limits ===
The speech should run 5-7 minutes. Your assignment grade will be lowered by 5 points for every 45 seconds you speak under or over the target time range.

== Hints on doing well ==

=== Select a topic that allows you to motivate ===
The key thing is: does your topic allow you to talk about a policy problem, policy solutions, and doable calls to action? Steer clear of social ills. I once had someone who wanted to do an advocacy speech on “being nicer.” This was too vague. Rather, you are looking for broad issues that can be understood in a problem/solution/action format: same sex marriage, increasing funding for NASA, getting charter schools for Washington State, increasing P.E. requirements in Washington State schools. In a similar vein, you might argue increasing funding or support for a specific non-profit group working to end a larger ill. I have had students argue, quite compellingly, for increased support for agencies working to end sex trafficking. We will discuss advocacy topics more in class.

=== Make sure the argumentative elements work well together ===
In thinking about your argument, keep two items in mind: stock issues and congruency. So, we will use stock issues for getting at most of the arguments in the advocacy speech. It comes down to: what’s wrong and how can it be fixed (or what’s not wrong and why attempting to fix it is bad)? In an awareness raising situation, this gets to the core elements. Similarly, you need to make sure that the various elements of your argument work well together. We’ll spend a day on this in class, but the issue is: are your solutions truly (and clearly) solving for the problems you identified? Additionally, do the calls to action truly (and clearly) advance the solutions discussed?

=== Write a stylistically rich argument ===
In the advocacy speech, you are writing for the ear. You are carefully crafting a speech that will sound good (even stirring) when spoken. This is quite a distance from the impromptu assignment where you delivered a clear, but plainspoken speech. Why do this? Why write in this grander form of oratory? For a couple of reasons. One is that it allows you to meld your language style and argumentative aims. Another reason is that it gives you a space to develop a richer sense of style. Now, you may not find yourself speaking in an occasion that calls for grand oratory, but you will have a familiarity with stylistic devices. A mastery of these devices allows you to instantly improve anything you say. In a business meeting, one or two stylistic devices in the appropriate places will make the presentation that much stronger and more memorable. Of course, there are many times you will find yourself in a position where more stylistically rich language is called for; a wedding, funeral, religious services, dedications, etc. Being able to craft a good line is always a good trait.

=== Deliver the speech’s style appropriately ===
Delivery is a huge component of this speech. You are outside in front of an audience of strangers. Delivery is key. Certainly, you will need to adapt to the space and adopt a bigger, more dynamic persona in this speech. At the very least, you will need to significantly bring up your projection level simply to be heard outside.

=== Beyond simply bigger delivery, though, is the issue of delivering the style well ===
In essence, you need to write for good speech delivery and then, in turn, deliver the speech in a way that capitalizes on your writing. If you look at the grading rubric for this assignment, you’ll see a number of specific elements like pacing, pausing, emotional tones, and the like. Just as the style needs to mesh with the argument, the delivery needs to mesh with the style. For example, symploce, as a stylistic device, calls for a particular type of delivery cadence. The part of your speech where you are talking about the problems calls for a different type of emotionality than when you are discussing your solutions. Having spent lots of time crafting the language of your advocacy speech, you need to devote considerable attention to how that writing sounds best when delivered. Herein lies the challenge: you have written a speech with style, now you must deliver it in a way that doesn’t sound read or memorized. We’ll talk more about this balancing act in class, but it is one of the most important aspect of the advocacy speech.

=== Be serious in your efforts to be heard ===
This speech is a unique opportunity to stand in a public area and demand attention. People will literally stop in their tracks and listen to your argument. The implication here is that it had better be a good argument and you had better be serious about your argument. I’m not saying that there can’t be humor in your speech, but that you should be serious about your topic and your intent. In the past, I have been discouraged when I see students playacting instead of speaking. They get out there and scream and render their garments, but it feels disingenuous. Alternatively, students simply stand there and read their notecards. Both actions miss the point of the assignment, which is to actually engage an audience of strangers with your honest and serious arguments. It is difficult and potentially embarrassing, but if you really commit yourself to being heard as a serious and engaging speaker, you will get so much from this assignment.

== Rubric ==

Note: The percentages here are guidelines. All these categories are mutually dependent.

=== Invention & Arrangement (32 points/40%) ===
The speaker:
* addressed an appropriate topic in a comprehensive manner.
* included appropriate stock issues and discussed them effectively.
* included appropriate evidence and discussed it effectively.
* included appropriate calls to action and discussed them effectively.
* arranged the speech appropriately and congruently.
* oriented the audience to the topic appropriately and effectively.
* concluded the speech appropriately and effectively.

=== Style (24 points/30%) ===
The speaker:
* included appropriate tones and performed them effectively.
* wrote a stylistically rich and appropriate speech.
* performed the stylistic writing effectively.
* wrote for the ear.

=== Memory & Delivery (24 points/30%) ===
The speaker:
* used notes and memory effectively and appropriately.
* spoke fluidly, avoiding memory and/or delivery gaps.
* performed their ethos well, appearing confident and animated.
* interacted with the environment and the audience effectively and appropriately
* performed projection and prosody appropriately and effectively.
* moved and gestured appropriately and effectively.

== Grading descriptions ==

In addition to the above rubric, I wanted to give you a more holistic description of what the different speeches often look and sound like. What follows below is simply a discussion of some of the commonalities that occur when we see an excellent, good, adequate, or poor speech. Invention, arrangement, and delivery are all mutually dependent. So, a speaker might have excellent invention, adequate arrangement, and good delivery. The resulting grade reflects this admixture.

=== Excellent advocacy speeches (72-80) ===

;Invention and Arrangement: In excellent speeches, the argument is very clear. The speaker has done a good job of making a concise case for action. The ill is well-stated and, often, well supported. The evidence merges well with the writing. By the end of the speech, the audience understands the issue’s clear and pressing need. The cure fits the need perfectly. An audience member can clearly understand how and why these particular solutions speak directly to the stated ills. Blame and consequences, when used, also work to tighten the argument. Argument congruency is an important part of excellent advocacy speeches; these stylistically written speeches stand on a foundation of crystal clear logic. Finally, the calls to action are relevant, interesting, and doable. The speaker provides sufficient information so each audience member knows what he or she must do in order to take the recommended action.

Excellent speeches have a real sense of flow. None of the speech’s sections could be said to “wander” or “lack focus”; rather, each section fits perfectly with the other sections. In terms of tone, the different sections feel and sound different. The writing and delivery in the ill is different from the blame and/or calls to action. In each case, the section’s tone matches its argument.

;Style: Excellent speeches have amazingly well-crafted language. The writing and argument have merged together seamlessly. The stylistic devices are used in a way to amplify the underlying argument. Rather than having a few stylistic devices throughout the speech, the entire advocacy speech is written at a higher, grander level, thus magnifying the intensity of the argument. Yet, the stylistic devices are always appropriate to the argument and topic.

;Memory and Delivery: In excellent speeches, the delivery is additive; the delivery capitalizes on the stylistic writing and the strength of the argument to make the performance motivating and interesting. The speaker appears to command the space with presence. The speaker’s volume is appropriate for the space: loud enough to command attention, but not so loud as to reduce the range of emotion available to the speaker.  The speaker’s vocal variety and pacing work to highlight the argument and the stylistic devices. The speaker builds effectively to an unmistakable conclusion.

=== Good advocacy speeches (64-71) ===

;Invention and Arrangement: In good speeches, the argument is clear. Most parts of the ill are discussed well. There may be a few passages that don’t feel as if they fit the ill quite as well. The evidence is appropriate, but, at times, can take away from the speech’s momentum. As with the ills, the cures are also generally well argued. Good speeches have strong argument congruency, but the fit isn’t as perfect as in in excellent speeches. This could be because the speaker’s cures don’t cover all of the ills discussed or that the cures seem to address a related ill, but not exactly the one discussed. Finally, the calls to action are relevant and doable. While in excellent speeches, these calls are informative and concise, the class to action in good speeches aren’t quite as clear. After listening to the speech, audience members may still have some questions about what they need to do in order to take up the action.

Good speeches have a strong sense of flow. That said, unlike excellent speeches, there are parts of good speeches that might “wander” or “lack focus.” The speech has a sense of forward momentum, but the overall structure simply isn’t as tight as an excellent speech. The sections have some sense of tonal difference. While there may not be as many tones and/or the differences may not be as significant as in the excellent speech, such tones are present.

;Style: Good speeches have some excellent language use. Many of the stylistic devices are integrated well into the speech. However, there are two different voices in the speech: the stylistic one and the regular one. Whereas an excellent speech has a consistent high style throughout, the good speeches tack back and forth between a rich and overly plain style.

;Memory and Delivery: In good speeches, the performer has devoted a fair bit of time and energy to finding the best delivery style. However, unlike excellent speeches, good speeches have moments of great delivery (as opposed to great delivery from beginning to end). Good speakers appear comfortable in the space, but they don’t have a consistent presence. The speaker’s volume is appropriate for the space: loud enough to command attention, but not so loud as to reduce the range of emotion available to the speaker.  The speaker has some good vocal variety and pacing, but there are also some places in the speech where the delivery drags a bit. 

=== Adequate advocacy speeches (56-63) ===

;Invention and Arrangement: In adequate speeches, the argument is mixed. While one element (ill, blame, cure, etc.) might be very clear, the others might be lacking clarity. This has a chain effect; if the ill is unclear, the cures won’t make as much sense in the context of the speech. Thus, there tend to be a few congruency problems in adequate speeches. While some of the evidence and/or examples work well, others seem to be odd choices.

Adequate speeches need a greater sense of flow. Often, the opening sections need to be clearer and name the topic sooner or more clearly. Some sections of the speech run either too short or drag on too long given what they are arguing. Similarly, there are some sections that undeniably lack focus. Adequate speeches tend to not have much appropriate variation in tone and delivery. While some delivery tones might be forced into sections of the speech, these don’t emerge organically from the argument and the writing.

;Style: Adequate speeches need a greater sense of style. Whereas good speeches tack back and forth between a rich and overly plain style, adequate speeches spend much of their time in the plain style. Stylistic devices tend to stand out as noticeably inserted into the speech in that they don’t’ seem to fit the rest of the argument and writing.

;Memory and Delivery: In adequate speeches, the performer needs to develop a clearer sense of delivery style. More often than not, adequate speakers don’t speak with enough volume for the space. While they may not be uncomfortable, adequate speakers do not have much of a sense for presence. In many ways, their delivery style seems more appropriate to the classroom than to the outdoor space. Often, adequate speakers are overly reliant on their note cards. Ultimately, adequate speeches sound like they need another couple of practices to bring the writing and delivery closer together.

=== Poor advocacy speeches (48-55) ===

;Invention and Arrangement: In poor speeches, the argument is poor. Multiple argumentative elements (ill, blame, cure, etc.) are vague or unclear. At the end of the speech, the audience may still not have a sense of the exact nature of the ill discussed. In many cases, this might stem from a lack of clear examples and/or evidence (or underdeveloped examples and/or evidence). Obviously, argument congruency is a major problem in poor speeches; the argumentative elements often feel disconnected from one another. The calls to action tend to be few and poorly articulated.

Poor speeches have a flawed sense of flow. Since the argumentative elements lack a compelling logic, the arrangement tends to follow suit. The speeches main sections tend to either be so underdeveloped that they fail to present enough relevant information or they drag on well past their usefulness and drain the speech of its momentum.

;Style: Poor speeches need significantly greater attention to style. The attempts at style that are present are few and, often, poorly executed. In listening to the speech, it sounds as if the speaker never devoted much time to crafting the language of the speech.

;Memory and Delivery: The delivery in poor speeches actually harms the quality and clarity of the argument.Poor speakers don’t speak with enough volume for the space. Poor speakers often don’t change their delivery at all to accommodate the outdoor space. Poor speakers often rely too heavily on their note cards. Alternatively, poor speakers have a rambling delivery since the speech wasn’t planned out sufficiently. Ultimately, poor speeches sound like they paid little attention to crafting a strong delivery style.

=== Failing advocacy speeches (47 and below) ===

;Invention and Arrangement: Failing speakers develop and deliver speeches that have little to do with the assignment requirements. If they deal with appropriate topics, they make few if any attempts to motivate their audiences. Such speeches can be rather apathetic or, conversely, rants that relate little to the assignment design.

Failing speakers seem to have little to no sense of structure. Main points and sub-points, if mentioned, seem disconnected from one another and the thesis.

;Style: Failing speakers have little to no stylistic devices in the speech. As an unprepared speech, the speakers tend to opt for an entirely plain spoken style.

;Memory and Delivery: Failing speakers have inappropriate delivery. This may mean that the speakers are clearly apathetic towards the entire act of giving a speech. This may mean that the speakers are enthused, but are doing so merely for comic effect or as a way of passionately advancing an inappropriate topic.