Phil Davidson delivers his speech with a lot of emotion and anger. He is speaking to a crowd of old and middle aged men who don't want to hear yelling at a political convention. They are meant to be quiet, persuasive speeches persuading people to elect the representative. Phil Davidson uses too much enthusiasm and is very loud and it is not appropriate for the time and place. He may have gotten further in the election if he made a better impression in his speech.
This was not at all a good speech. He delivers his message with way too much fervor and a remarkable lack of clarity. I agree with Glen, the speech was inappropriate, and in no way served to further his political campaign.
I think that Phil Davidson did not do a good job at his speech. He was too loud and obnoxious for the speech that he was presenting. I think that if I was in that audience he would scare me because he was shouting everything that he was saying. He was good at repeating his main points that he was trying to remember. He had good conviction about his speech and it showed that he wanted to win the election. Overall I do not think that it was the speech.
I agree with Glen about him using a lot of anger when he was speaking. He was yelling to loud he should have talked quieter about it. I think that he scared the audience by the way he was talking to them. No one would want to vote him for a representative by the way he was talking to them. But he did do a good job at talking about and repeating what he wanted them to know.
I agree with Hannah and don't think Phil Davidson delivered his speech well. He didn't use proper tone or body language when speaking. Throughout the speech he also paced back and forth making it difficult to focus on his words. I also agree that he did do a good job in emphasizing his main points, but that's all that I really thought was good about the speech other than it was entertaining to watch.
I agree with Hannah. His speech was not that good. He defenially was way to loud and obnoxious. It was not good because it probably scared the audience more than he got his point across. He did have good conviction but still not a good speech
I agree with Hannah that he has gotten his point across, but perhaps it isn't in the way that he had hoped to persuade others to see from his view point. His point got lost in his yelling, however.
I agree with Hannah because the speech was not presented very well. He was very loud and annoying. He kept repeating his main points and wouldn't talk about anything new.
I agree with Hannah, that Phil Davidson did not do a good job delivering his speech. He was very loud and obnoxious, which probably scared the audience and also drew attention away from what he was actually saying. He was moving around and yelling and you could barely tell what he was saying sometimes. Overall he did not deliver the speech well.
I agree with Hannah and Glen, Phil's tone was unacceptable especially for the crowd he had. The audience had to be scared to be in the same room as him I know I would be. If he had a better tone, he would've made it farther because he was good in the points he was making.
I agree with Glen. None of the old men in that crowd wanted to hear some guy that thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread yell. Yes, he did get his point across but he could have done in it a much calmer fashion so he does not literally scare the voters away.
I agree with Hannah and Glen, he was terrifying and I imagine the front row was traumatized by his outbursts of passion for politics so to speak. He was entirely too inappropriate and very obnoxious.
I agree with Hannah because the way he was speaking did not appeal to me even though at some points there was humor it still did not grasp the positive aspect of my attention.
I agree with both Hannah and Glen, the speech was not very good or effective. I would have also been scared and the constant yelling was way too obnoxious. He did get some of his points across, but he didn't use good strategies for his speech. If he would have used a normal tone and raised his voice on the most powerful points then it would have been better, but he did not do this and screamed the whole time.
Phil Davidson delivers his speech with a lot of emotion and anger. He is speaking to a crowd of old and middle aged men who don't want to hear yelling at a political convention. They are meant to be quiet, persuasive speeches persuading people to elect the representative. Phil Davidson uses too much enthusiasm and is very loud and it is not appropriate for the time and place. He may have gotten further in the election if he made a better impression in his speech.
ReplyDeleteThis was not at all a good speech. He delivers his message with way too much fervor and a remarkable lack of clarity. I agree with Glen, the speech was inappropriate, and in no way served to further his political campaign.
DeleteI think that Phil Davidson did not do a good job at his speech. He was too loud and obnoxious for the speech that he was presenting. I think that if I was in that audience he would scare me because he was shouting everything that he was saying. He was good at repeating his main points that he was trying to remember. He had good conviction about his speech and it showed that he wanted to win the election. Overall I do not think that it was the speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Glen about him using a lot of anger when he was speaking. He was yelling to loud he should have talked quieter about it. I think that he scared the audience by the way he was talking to them. No one would want to vote him for a representative by the way he was talking to them. But he did do a good job at talking about and repeating what he wanted them to know.
DeleteI agree with Hannah and don't think Phil Davidson delivered his speech well. He didn't use proper tone or body language when speaking. Throughout the speech he also paced back and forth making it difficult to focus on his words. I also agree that he did do a good job in emphasizing his main points, but that's all that I really thought was good about the speech other than it was entertaining to watch.
DeleteI agree with Hannah. His speech was not that good. He defenially was way to loud and obnoxious. It was not good because it probably scared the audience more than he got his point across. He did have good conviction but still not a good speech
DeleteI agree with Hannah that he has gotten his point across, but perhaps it isn't in the way that he had hoped to persuade others to see from his view point. His point got lost in his yelling, however.
DeleteI agree with Hannah because the speech was not presented very well. He was very loud and annoying. He kept repeating his main points and wouldn't talk about anything new.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with glen because even though he made a FOOL of himself he still got the attention of the audience and will forever go down as crazy :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah, that Phil Davidson did not do a good job delivering his speech. He was very loud and obnoxious, which probably scared the audience and also drew attention away from what he was actually saying. He was moving around and yelling and you could barely tell what he was saying sometimes. Overall he did not deliver the speech well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with hanna because this guy did not have a sense of direction in his speech and he was not concendering his tone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah and Glen, Phil's tone was unacceptable especially for the crowd he had. The audience had to be scared to be in the same room as him I know I would be. If he had a better tone, he would've made it farther because he was good in the points he was making.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Glen. None of the old men in that crowd wanted to hear some guy that thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread yell. Yes, he did get his point across but he could have done in it a much calmer fashion so he does not literally scare the voters away.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah and Glen, he was terrifying and I imagine the front row was traumatized by his outbursts of passion for politics so to speak. He was entirely too inappropriate and very obnoxious.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah because the way he was speaking did not appeal to me even though at some points there was humor it still did not grasp the positive aspect of my attention.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Hannah and Glen, the speech was not very good or effective. I would have also been scared and the constant yelling was way too obnoxious. He did get some of his points across, but he didn't use good strategies for his speech. If he would have used a normal tone and raised his voice on the most powerful points then it would have been better, but he did not do this and screamed the whole time.
ReplyDelete