Persuasive Speech Evaluation

            After watching the video of my persuasive speech found at http://sharing.theflip.com/session/24e7cc5efa98658acc2d35a936abdef1/video/36652991, I came to the conclusion that it had many strong points, as well as room for improvement.  The first thing I noticed was I had a good attention grabber right in the beginning.  I quoted a very interesting statement that caught people’s attention.  One thing that could have made it better was the volume I was talking at.  I talked loud enough for people to hear, but I could have talked louder to really take control of the room.  Another thing I noticed during my speech was my body language.  I had good posture and did not have my hands in my pockets or anything.  One thing that I could have done better was use more hand gestures.  I used hand gestures at time, but I could have used more in the end.  I also made good eye contact with the audience and did not look down at my notes too much.  This is an important thing to do because the audience would feel neglected if I just read off of my notes the entire time.  Another positive aspect of my speech was my information.  I came off as very knowledgeable about my topic and had a very organized presentation.  This brings me to the last good thing I noticed about my speech after watching the video.  My visual aid was helpful.  It had some pictures and some text briefly describing each of my arguments, but it was not too much.  Overall, I would say my speech was done well, but there were definitely some things I could improve on.

Response to Nick Janus's "Speech Evaluation"

            After reading Nick janus’s “Speech Evaluation,” and watching his speech, I have come to completely agree with his evaluation of himself, which can be found at http://njanuslsc100f10.blogspot.com/.  In his evaluation, Nick claims that his speech had its ups and downs.  This is very true.  In the beginning he was looking down a little too much to read from his notes.  However, he had good posture and body language, which let everyone know that he was in charge at the moment.  Nick also says that he thinks he had a good introduction as well as an attention grabber.  These are both true statements, he seemed to grab everyone’s attention great, and explain what he would be doing in his introduction.  The next thing Nick says he should have done differently is a power point presentation.  I agree with this completely.  A power point would have given a visual aid for the class to see each step better and make a proper paper crane.  The next thing he could have improved was his volume.  If he talked just a bit louder, it would have grabbed everyone’s attention just a little bit better.  One more thing that could have been improved in the speech was when Nick stumbled on some words.  Nick brought this up in his evaluation and he is completely right about it.  If he would have just practiced his speech a little more, he might not have stumbled on some of these words and the speech would have gone a little bit more smoothly.  Overall, I agree with Nick in saying that his speech was good, but it also could have been better.

Technorati Search

           I used technorati to find a blog about marijuana and addiction, and it can be found at http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com/2010/12/cannabis-and-severe-vomiting.html.  This blog was created by someone named Dirk Hanson in December or 2006.  This means the blog has only been active for close to 4 years.  It seems as though Dirk Hanson creates blog posts about once a month, but there is no specific pattern.   Dirk is a journalist, and he seems to utilize many links in his blog posts.  Most of his links are either links to other blogs posts or to journals, which makes sense if he is a journalist. 

            My second search using technorati was to find a specific blog post about marijuana.  I found one called “Pot can Make you Puke,” which can be found at http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com/2010/12/cannabis-and-severe-vomiting.html.  The author of this blog post is the same as the last one.  His name is Dirk Hanson, and he is a journalist.  This blog post came from Dirk Hanson’s blog entitled “ Addiction Inbox.”  This blog post was written on December 6, 2010, and 8:36 in the morning.  The tone in Dirk’s blog post is completely different from that of my persuasive paper.  This post is purely informative and states many facts that are both good and bad about marijuana.  My paper, on the other hand, is persuasive and tries to get all readers to take one side on the subject.  This blog has very good information and seems to be a great source.

Response to Nick Lund's "Demonstration Evaluation: How to Drive a Car with Manual Transmission."

         I completely agree with Nick Lund’s response to the video “How to drive a car with manual transmission,” found at http://nelundlsc100f09.blogspot.com/.  Nick claims that the video is well put together, and it is.  He also claims that it is difficult to drive in manual transmission, but it is a very useful technique to acquire.  I completely agree with Nick on both of these points.  Driving a car in manual transmission is extremely difficult, but if you know how to do it, it can be very helpful.   This video seems to be done by someone who knows what they are doing, which helps the cause of the video because it attracts the audience’s eye.  Another great thing about this video that Nick points out is how clearly and assertively the man in the video speaks.  Speaking like this keeps the listeners attention on the video and helps the listener learn.  Another thing Nick points out that is good about this video is the visual aid that is used.  The man recording the video gives different views, which help the audience visualize what they actually have to do in order to successfully drive a car with manual transmission.  One more comment Nick made about the video that I agree with is negative.  The man in the video was always very straight to the point, and didn’t do anything special to keep he audience’s attention.  Overall, I would say this was a good review by Nick on a well put together demonstration speech.

Ethics and Medicine

         One major argument in the medical world right now where ethics and medicine conflict is the debate on stem cell research and use.  Many people believe stem cells should be heavily researched and used to their full potential.  Stem cells are simply cells in an embryo that are undeveloped.  Since these cells are undeveloped, they have the ability to grow into the same type of cell they are surrounded by.  People believe that using these cells could be a major break through on many diseases and even cancer.  On the other hand, many people also believe stem cell research and use should be completely outlawed due to the fact that stem cells come from embryos.  Embryos are small and undeveloped bodies.  People who are against stem cell research and use consider the small, undeveloped, bodies to be human beings.  This is where the problem lies.  I know about this conflict because it has been all over the news for many years now.  The debate on whether to allow stem cell research and use has been going on for a very long time.  I thin both sides to this argument are represented well.  Each side has several good arguments, and each side’s arguments have been heard many times.

            Many of the arguments against stem cell research can be found at http://www.pregnantpause.org/ethics/whystem.htm.  However, this website seems to focus on one major fact that lead people to believe stem cell research is terrible.  It says that stem cells are extracted from embryos, which are human beings.  In order for the cells to be extracted, the embryo must be dead.  So, what they are saying is the argument is actually about whether or not it is right to kill a human being for medical research. 

            Many of the opposing arguments, which say stem cell research should be legal, can be found at http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-stem-cell-research.html. This website has many arguments for why stem cells should be researched.  It says that the cells can be used to cure many diseases including Parkinson’s, schizophrenia, and even cancer.  On top of that, it says that it can help scientists learn about things like human growth and cell development.  The website arguing for the use of stem cells has a much more compelling argument simply because there are so many.  However, the debate is still ongoing, and could be for a very long time.

Evaluation of My Demonstration Speech

     After watching the video of my demonstration speech found at http://sharing.theflip.com/session/7052ce0801402288f90bb4238e619770/video/23962741 several times and closely inspecting it, I have come to the conclusion that I did many things very well in this speech.  Despite the fact that I did many things well, I also could have done better with a thing or two.  The first thing I noticed I did well was grab the audience’s attention right in the beginning.  Everyone laughed, but they also became more interested in the speech because of the intro.  After grabbing the audience’            attention, I think I also had a pretty good introduction.  I introduced what I was going to teach everyone, and I explained why they should be interested in learning about what I was going to teach them.  After the introduction I transitioned into the procedure of folding a shirt in a Japanese fashion.  After watching the video of the speech I thought my procedure seemed very organized and understandable.  I demonstrated exactly what I was saying, and even went over some more confusing parts multiple times.  Another thing I thought I did well was make eye contract with everybody in the audience well.  I did not spend much time looking down at the shirt.  I also think I made a lot of hand gestures, which are good for speeches.  The last thing I believe I did well in this speech was get my overall point and lesson across to the audience.  I had a volunteer come up and try the folding technique I taught, and he seemed to have learned well from my speech.  One thing I think I could have improved on in this speech was the volume I talked at.   I was not quiet, but I believe if I talked a little louder I could have kept some people’s attention better.  In the end, watching this video made me feel positively about how I gave my demonstration speech.

Response to Nick Lund's "Obstacles in Writing/Reading TILOHL"

            I completely agree with Nick Lund’s post about the possible obstacles involved in reading and writing The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks found at http://nelundlsc100f09.blogspot.com/.  The first thing he says is that it is an important story to be heard because it can help us with making future laws.  There is a lot of debate about whether or not a doctor should need consent to use a persons cells, or anything else from their body.  This story seems to prove that consent should be necessary, so it can really help with decisions like that.  The next point Nick Lund makes is that Millions of dollars were made from Henrietta Lack’s cells, but she was unable to pay for health insurance herself.  This is completely unfair to Henrietta and her family.  If her cells were used to make millions of dollars, the least the researchers and doctors could have done was give some profit to the Lack’s family so they can afford necessary things such as health care.  Nick Lund claims that it is very important for this story to be heard so people can learn from the mistakes that were made previously.  I am behind this one hundred percent because it would be a shame to see anything like this happen to someone again. 

            The next point Nick Lund makes in his blog is how Rebecca Skloot had to overcome a major obstacle while writing this book.  Skloot had to write accurately about the Lacks family, while keeping many different types of audiences interested.  It must have been extremely difficult to keep experts interested in the book, while keeping it exciting so students stay interested as well.  Nick Lund’s blog about the struggles of writing and reading The Immortal Life of Henriettta Lacks is a very accurate analysis.

Demonstration Evaluation

     I watched a video of a demonstration speech about how to make seven layer bars that can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQFHUSkYtOI.  This demonstration speech has many positive aspects to it, and does a great job of showing its audience how to make seven layer bars.  The first thing the woman in the video does very well is grabbing the audience’s attention.  She uses good imagery and description to get the audience interested in what she is going to explain.  Another thing she does well is give a brief history of where she learned of the recipe she is going to give for the seven layer bar.  Giving this history lets the audience know that it has been around for a while so it is probably a safe and effective way of making the bars.  The woman in the video also delivers the demonstration great.  She projects her clearly, and loud enough to hear, but not too loud.  She also makes eye contact with the camera, which is very important during a speech.  Aside from delivering the speech well, she is also very organized.  Before starting the actual demonstration, the woman tells the audience all of the necessary materials and ingredients for the seven layer bars.  While explaining what you need to make these bars, she shows what they look like for a visual aid.  Another very important thing the woman in the video does well is she performs all the actions she is describing.  Doing this is important because the seeing it done helps the audience understand how to do it better.  One more important thing this speech includes is the final product.  At the very end, the woman in the video shows what the seven layer bars should look like when they are finished.  Overall I think this demonstration speech is done very well.  I was not able to find a single drawback in the entire video.  

Response to Paul Yonga's, "Organs for Sale?"

          I respectfully disagree with Paul Yonga's post entitled, "Organs for Sale", found at http://pyongalsc100f10.blogspot.com/.  One of the main arguments in this blog says that people should not be able to sell their organs because it makes them a commodity.  I do not agree with this because people would not be forced to sell their organs, it would be their choice.  If a person wants to sell their body, or parts of their body, for someone else's benefit, they should be allowed to.  The fact is, every person in the world owns his or her body, so he or she should be able to do anything and everything with that body.  I do not think this is a good argument to keep the sales of people's organs illegal.

           Paul's second argument says that people would be putting themselves at a large risk because selling organs involves surgery.  Although I do agree that surgery always puts people at risk of possible failures or mistakes made by doctors, I still disagree with his main point.  As long as people have a choice, selling organs should be legal.  If someone in desperate need of money is willing to put his or her life on the line, he or she should be able to make his or her own decision.  Part of life is making difficult decisions and living, or not living with them.  Paul has several decent arguments about why selling organs should be illegal, but I still believe it should be legal to sell organs because people own their bodies.

 
 

Organs for Sale

   I believe people should be able to sell their organs if they want to.  There are multiple reasons that I believe people should be able to sell, or do whatever they want, with their organs.  The biggest reason I have this strong belief is because the organs belong to a person.  People should be able to do whatever they want with their organs because the organs are their property.  Despite the fact that I believe selling organs should be allowed, I also believe there should be requirements for a person to be able to sell them.  If someone wants to sell his or her organs, those organs should be thoroughly inspected by doctors.  Only organs that are completely healthy and safe should be sold.  

   Another reason I believe the selling of organs should be legal is because it would probably increase the amount of available organs immensely.  Many people die because they are unable to receive a certain organ that they need to live.  But, if people were allowed to sell their organs, more organs would be available, and less people would die due to a failure of finding a new organ.  In the end, the ability for people to sell their organs could contribute to the saving of many lives.

  One more reason I think people should be allowed to sell their organs is because of profit.  Many people in this day and age are in severe need of money, and selling their organs could give them some extra money that might go a long way for them. 

         After reading the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10786211, my opinion has not changed, but it has been made stronger.  This article completely reiterates all of my beliefs on this topic.  It says organ selling should be legal because people have the right to do what they want with their body, and because it will increase the supply or organs.  I strongly believe the selling of organs should be legal.

Obstacles in writing/reading TILOHL

     After reading the synopsis of The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, I believe it is very important for a story like Henrietta Lack's to be heard by the public.  One reason I believe it is important is because if people hear about the unfair things that were done to Henrietta Lacks, they can try to prevent it from happening again.  Hearing Henrietta Lack's story could motivate people to look into what is being done with their own blood and cellular samples.  Another reason this story needs to be heard is so people realize how unfairly African Americans were treated at one time.  Henrietta Lack's story is one of many stories about African American people being treated poorly.  One last reason it is important for this story to be heard is because Henrietta Lacks did not receive any payment for her medical donations, so this book will give her some credit for the medical breakthroughs she was a part of.   

     I think Rebecca Skloot faced several different challenges while trying to write a book like The Immortal Life of Hentrietta Lacks for such a broad audience.  One major challenge she probably faced was keeping people in the medical field interested, while entertaining people who are uneducated about this subject as well.  Many people might not care about the medical side of the story, so she had to find a way to keep them entertained with different aspects of the story.  A second challenge Rebecca Skloot most likely faced was gathering large amounts of accurate information about what actually happened to Henrietta Lacks to further inform experts on the topic.  
     I am anticipating one major challenge while reading this book.  I believe what was done to Henrietta Lacks was unfair and should be illegal.  Since I have such a strong opinion on this subject, I think it will be difficult for me to read many parts of this book without forming biased opinions.  In order to completely understand why doctors and scientists did what they did, I need to keep an open mind while reading this book, and I am expecting that to be a great challenge.