Seven top tips to writing and delivering a winning speech

I’ve always known I was a good public speaker. It helps that I was exposed to it from a young age but I also love a good rant and I enjoy attention. So talking to a crowd is something which I have taken to quite well. So here are my tips on how to write and deliver a winning speech in case anyone is interested.

1.    Be yourself

This is of fundamental importance. It can be all too tempting to go on YouTube and watch speeches from people who do them on a regular basis and try to mimic them. My advice? By all means watch them, and see if you can pick up some important rhetorical techniques the speakers use, but never ever try to be someone you are not. If your audience sense that you are trying to be someone else then they will quickly detect any lingering insecurity you may have and what you are saying will instantly lose credibility.

2.    Don’t speak to fast

If you think you are going too slowly, then you are doing the right speed. If you don’t think you are too slow, then you are too fast. People take more in when you slow down and it makes you seem more assured and more authoritative. If you don’t believe me, YouTube any speech President Obama has ever given. Magnificent speaker.

3.    Project. But don’t shout

I can’t tell you a technique on how to do this so all I can say is practise, practise, practise. You will sound assured and at ease if you are not shouting but at the same time it is vital that your audience can hear you. Slowing down also helps in this regard for the sake of clarity.

4.    Don’t just read stuff out

a)      Plan the points you wish to cover in your speech –like how you plan an essay.

b)      Write a script. Do this about a week or two before the speech is to be given. Don’t write this like an essay. Write it how you would like it to sound to the target audience.

c)       Read it aloud a few times, timing it as you go.

d)      Create a new document and go through your speech. On the second document, bullet point the first word/words of each sentence/couple of sentences. Have one bullet point per sentence.

e)      Practice delivering the speech with this new document of bullet points. Where you cannot remember the next sentence, simply look down and you will see the buzzword. This should trigger the rest of the sentence in your mind and you will be able to deliver the speech adequately and fluidly.

f)       Repeat this process over and over, and soon you will find that the majority of your speech is committed to memory. You are now in a position where you are not reading something but it actually sounds like you are talking. Believe me. From an audience’s perspective, you become considerably more credible. You are no longer a robot. You are now a confident, intelligent and articulate human. That helps.

5.    Don’t be a boring fucker

If you think your voice is slightly monotonous then make a point of using variance of pitch and tempo. Use gesture too. And facial expressions. Remember the stuff you did in drama class at school? Now is the time to use it. It may sound childish but trust me. The most engaging speakers are the ones who take on a role as they do it. It is also said by some than more than half of communication is carried out my non-language factors. I don’t know if it is true but you want to convey your speech as clearly as possible whilst keeping your audience engaged.

6.    Show a friend

Preferably an honest one, who can give you genuine feedback on what you are saying and how you are saying it. Particularly if you are unsure how someone will interpret a given part of your speech, it may be worth knowing what an impartial person thinks.

7.    Deep breaths

A lot of people struggle with nerves before speaking. The easiest way to cope with nerves is to rehearse well but even then some people still get a bit of stage fright. There are techniques to cope with it however and one of the ones I use is a simple breathing technique used by singers, professional athletes, politicians… just about anyone who is about to perform in front of a crowd. Simply stand up straight with good posture, let go of any items you may be holding, find a quiet room if possible and relax. Breathe in through your nose only and try to inhale for four of five seconds. Then hold your breath for another four or five seconds before slowly exhaling out of your mouth for between eight and ten seconds. Repeat this process for as long as you feel is necessary and you should notice that you feel a lot more focused and calm about the task at hand.

I hope you found this guide useful. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a tweet @JoshBanksy1 or message me on Facebook.

3 thoughts on the unfolding crisis in the Middle East

1. The discourse is far too polarised

This is a problem which is not just confined to Israel and Palestine themselves. Even in the West, spectators on both sides of the debate who claim to be campaigning in the name of 'peace' are painfully unaware of how counter-productive their efforts are. Whether it be the popular insistence on calling all Zionists 'Nazis' or the annoyingly persistent rhetoric from many Zionists who argue that the IDF can do no wrong and that Israel is 'simply defending herself', the only thing this rhetoric serves to promote is further hostility and further hate, which far from being akin to promoting peace and understanding, will only serve as a catalyst to escalate tensions both at home and abroad.

I understand that it is quite difficult for people to remain rational in such an emotionally loaded conflict, especially when in many cases, people have a personal attachment to the conflict. Many Jews feel, for instance, that when an organisation which according to its charter was formerly committed to the 'destruction of the Jewish state' fires rockets into Israel, that the IDF have every right to be thorough in their response from a military perspective. Perhaps most indicative of this, is that despite the fact that according to Gaza's Health Ministry, over 1300 Palestinians have been killed and over 6500 injured since fighting began on July 8th, over 90% of the Israeli population still support the operation which has come to be known as 'Operation Protective Edge'. That such brutal military action can galvanise so much support from the Israeli people demonstrates just how insecure ordinary Israelis feel. On the flip side, there are many anti-Zionists who in their rhetorical offensive against the Israelis refuse to acknowledge the faults on their own side, in particular those of Hamas, recognised by the United Nations officially as a terrorist organisation. Such is the emotional power of war, that the debate quickly becomes polarised, and it is perhaps only when people attempt to address this subject rationally and objectively that progress can be made. And that is something which I try, often in vain, to do. Indeed, in my frequent social media debates regarding the Middle East the centre ground is often a very lonely area to occupy, with passionate individuals on both sides hurling all sorts of abuse in my direction, thinking that if you do not agree to the letter with what they are saying then you must be the enemy, unable to distinguish between the rational and open-minded centre ground and the genuine opposition to their claim(s).

It is my view, as a Pro-Palestinian Zionist, that both the IDF and Hamas are organisations who have engaged in deplorable behaviour in recent weeks and both are responsible for war crimes. For instance, it is inexcusable that Hamas hide their weapons in schools and hospitals, areas where if bombed civilians will be killed. At the same time, the IDF's continued offensive in the air and on the ground in Gaza, which is killing more than ten times as many Palestinians as there are Israelis dying in Hamas rocket fire, is also an outrage. If more rational people like me were willing to speak out on this conflict and try to build a base in the centre ground then slowly but surely, both sides may just be able to come to understand one another. Sure we won't solve the crisis in the Middle East, but if more people were willing to discuss these issues rationally and sensibly, then we'll see less hate, less tension and more understanding from the observers.

2. There is a difference between 'Zionism' and 'Israel'.

It surprises me how common this misunderstanding is but it also frustrates me tremendously as someone who supports one but not the other. 'Zionism' is a belief in the right of the Jewish people to return to their historical homeland and form a Jewish nation-state (Israel). Yes, the Israeli government are all Zionists themselves but this is not to say that any operation the government or IDF carry out is a manifestation of Zionism itself. For instance, when the IDF 'accidentally' bomb a school or a UN shelter in the Gaza strip, many are quick out the blocks to condemn the attacks as a manifestation of Zionism itself, with some activists even comparing the ideology to Naziism.

I acknowledge the argument (though I don't actually agree with it myself) that the Israeli government can be said to be operating a genocidal apartheid policy in the Gaza strip. This is something which upsets me greatly and I greatly wish it to come to an end. However this is not to say that Zionism legislates for this. I find it comically hypocritical that some of the Muslims who complain about how Islamophobes associate terrorism with Islam itself are often the very same Muslims who wish to associate terrorism with Zionism. Of course, this is a misunderstanding which is not just applicable to Pro-Palestinian Muslims though this frustrates me particularly because I thought that more than anyone, these Muslims would be able to appreciate the injustice and offence of sweeping generalisations and associations. For the record... before I start getting abuse in the comments, I am not an Islamophobe one bit. Islam is a religion of peace. But let us be clear here. When Israel bombs a school in the Gaza strip, that is not to say that the ideology of Zionism allows for this behaviour. Zionism simply calls for a return to the Jewish homeland and the establishment of a Jewish state there. It says absolutely nothing about the morality and justification of the massacring of over a thousand civilians in under a month. To give a clearer indication of this, 75% of Jews in the West (granted not all Jews are Zionists) are against the occupation in Palestine. So Zionism does not equal Israel and certainly not Naziism... what an insult to those such as myself, who see Zionism as a solution to the Naziism which predominated in Europe during the 30s and 40s where my race were nearly wiped out.

3. Israel's response is disproportionate, unnecessary and criminal

Moving on from the discourse of the debate surrounding this conflict, I would like to offer my own take on the latest events in Gaza. I hear the argument from Zionists that due to the continued rocket fire from Hamas into Israel over the last few years, Israel has every right to seek out weaponry and terrorist tunnels and destroy them. I also hear the argument that because Hamas hides its own weaponry in areas of high civilian concentration for example in hospitals and schools, that this is therefore an adequate explanation for the number of civilians deaths in Gaza. For many Zionists, then, Israel has no choice, and must kill civilians in order to 'protect' itself, and the image on the right is one which has been shared frequently by the IDF and Zionist affiliated organisations in the UK. Aside from the fact that the Gaza strip is just 360 square kilometres and is one of the most concentrated regions in the world meaning that Hamas don't have many places to hide their munitions and tunnels, this still fails as a justification for the offensive by Israel in the last few weeks. 

According to an unpublished report by Professor Theodore Postol, Israel's infamous Iron Dome missile interception machinery intercepts only around 5% of Hamas rocket attacks, which would seem to imply that it is largely ineffective. However, this is largely due to the fact that the operators discriminate between projectiles which are considered threats and those which are not, tending to intercept the rockets which are headed towards concentrated civilian areas. Due to Hamas' lack of military expertise, they are unable to pinpoint Israeli military targets and so fire indiscriminately, meaning that the majority of their rockets land in empty spaces, which explains the lack of casualties on the Israeli side.

My point then is this. How can Israel say she is defending herself by bombarding Gaza when it isn't really under threat at all? Sure Hamas have fired in excess of a thousand rockets into Israeli territory but fundamentally if they aren't killing anyone then why do Israel need to respond at all? Shouldn't the Iron Dome interception system suffice as 'protection'. In an ideal world, if the IDF were able to destroy Hamas weapons and tunnels without civilian causalities then maybe this operation can be justified on the grounds of 'defence'. But this is of course an 'ideal' world... and is far from the truth in Gaza, the most densely populated region in the world. Given the volume of civilian casualties in this operation from the IDF, one cannot look at this war and argue with conviction that Israel is fighting in 'self defence'. Hamas may be pulling all the punches, but so far, they haven't hit their opponent at all, and so for Israel to respond by needlessly killing Palestinian civilians is unacceptable, unnecessary and a genuine humanitarian tragedy.