There is a profound difference between saying what you think and creating a message that increases the likelihood that others will think it as well, and it is the latter to which the effective speaker aspires. Nevertheless, being able clearly and forcefully to articulate yourself is a necessary starting point. The "My Best Moment" Speech allows the speaker to work on powerful self-articulation.
The purpose of the best moment speech is to demonstrate your
comprehension of the basic tools of the public address--General
and specific purposes, central ideas and claims. To that end, you
will give an address that will focus on your favorite
subject--YOU! You will then support your claim however you want
to for 2-3 minutes.
Decide on the moment in your life which best exemplifies who you
are or wish to be, then use the "moment" as evidence to
support that claim.
Don't just tell a story. Make a claim, then use the story to
support it (see sample outline).
The Best moment speech can also be called an "I think" speech, because the subject matter is determined solely by the interests of the speaker.
Obviously, any endeavor toward creating a message of interest benefits from having something interesting to say. Consider some of the following quotations that fit the "I Think . . ." format:
"I Think; therefore I am." Rene Descartes
"I think an artist has always to be out of step with his time." Orson Welles
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
"I think the world is run by 'C' students." Al McGuire
"Of all noises, I think music is the least disagreeable." Samuel Johnson
"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." Dwight D. Eisenhower
"I think we ought to have as great a regard for religion as we can, so as to keep it out of as many things as possible." Sean O'Casey
"I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough."Claire Sargent
"I think we consider too much the good luck of the early bird, and not enough the bad luck of the early worm." Franklin D. Roosevelt
"I think that maybe if women and children were in charge we would get somewhere." James Thurber:
Any one of these sentiments would launch a pretty pithy 3-4 minute speech. That is because they share certain qualities that merit discussion.
and most important, They Claim Territory. That is, each puts forth a concrete and specific claim, which defines the issue we are being asked to consider. To put it another way, the controversy (the substance about which reasonable people can disagree) is clear. Sargent and Thurber obviously have problems with the way men are running things. Descartes puts forth about the most succinctly stated philosophy in history. Even Roosevelt and Wilde, whose prose is a little more figurative than literal (which at this stage of development speakers should avoid), stake out issues to be developed, and we are more than willing to spend the time necessary to let them do so. Compare these statements to the kind we usually hear in class:
Each of these defines a topic, but each does so either by stating the obvious (everyone should vote. The subways are dirty.), by taking a predictable position on a cliche issue (the death penalty), or by "hoping" in the guise of thinking (more sections). In these examples, either the controversy is so broad and vaporous as to be irrelevant or obscure. There is nothing immediately at stake for me as an audience member, and the territory you have claimed is so well-mapped, I will be able (or think I am able) to predict your message. So, human nature being what it is, I will do so, put on my best frozen smile, and think about more engaging things.
each thought is stated energetically. This is not a matter of delivery, it is a function of the construction of the sentence. Look at the subjects and verbs of the clauses in the quotes. In most, you have concrete actors and actions. We've been voting for boobs. The world is run. God overestimates. People want peace. There is clearly energy (and we assume by extension commitment) in these statements. These people are willing to be a little more bold in their assertions than most of us, and that compels us to listen. In very few cases are there what we can call Killer Bees--forms of the verb "to be" (is, was, are , will be, etc) followed by abstract adjectives.
First, that's President Clinton to you, pal. Second, each of these statements claims territory but in a somewhat flaccid way. How are Catholic schools "better?" If the President is immoral, he does immoral things. The sentence that makes that charge would be better.
The issue regarding professional athletes is clear enough, but
it reinforces the bad habit of the overt, uninteresting
statement. Even a sentence like:
I think professional athletes make too much money.
is a little better, because "Athletes make" is more
concrete than "Athletes are." But a sentence like:
"I think Athlete's salaries threaten the economic stability
of professional sports." says the same thing but with
overtones of chaos and destruction. Which speech would you rather
hear?
these quotes do not waste words. Roosevelt states volumes about compassion, about the ramifications of ambition in a few artfully chosen words. McGuire smuggles a truckload of adjectives into the phrase "C Students" (Unfortunately, McGuire has the tendency to go on and list them ad nauseum when he talks.). Sargent's joke, O'Casey's sarcasm, and Johnson's legendary cynical irony practically shout. The basic public speaker need not--in fact, should not-- aspire to Johnsonian profundity. He or she needs simply to get on with it. We have plenty of time in the context of the address to qualify our opinions, but we must first state those opinions in such a way that the audience member will still be tuned in when the qualifications arrive.
To comment further on these examples would be to commit the error I am warning against.
The statement of one's position should claim specific territory, do so energetically, and waste no words. In other words, have a point worth having and say as directly as you can.
You might question the utility of spending so much time in consideration of a mere exercise. If, as stated earlier, the "I Think . . ." speech is just an exercise, why meditate so strenuously on it? The reason is simple. Remove the "I think . . ." and substitute the phrase "The audience member will . . ." and you have the basis of every public address or presentation you will ever give! The Purpose Statement, the stated objective of the speech shares all of the virtues of the "I think" statement. It must be clear, direct, meaningful and efficient. The virtues listed herein are fundamental to every communication event, so use the "I think" speech to develop them, then practice them for the rest of your speaking career.