Criticize a speech using the Neo-Aristotelian concepts

In this paper, you are to criticize a speech using the Neo-Aristotelian concepts. Find a speech that interests you; speeches are available in anthologies, online from a variety of sources (see AmericanRhetoric.com) reprinted in newspapers and on the Internet. Do NOT critique a fictional speech (like a speech from a movie). Please note: The focus here is on public speeches delivered by speakers to a live or televised audience. Short Youtube clips, speeches in movies, editorial articles, press releases, and book chapters are NOT considered public speeches. Some considerations in writing the paper: 1) Critique the speech using concepts from our discussions of Neo-Aristotelian methodology. This should include a short treatment of context (situation, speaker, audience, constraints), then analysis of the speech itself using three key canon elements (style, ethos, logos, pathos, delivery, memory, arrangement), ending with an assessment of the effects or effectiveness of the speech. See the Classical Criticism Worksheet is you need a layout of the key elements. 2) At the end of the Context section, develop a Thesis Statement (or Research Question) as an italicized single sentence that will focus your analysis of the three key canon elements and clarify argument about the Effect of the speech. put it at the end of the context section. Italicize this! 3) Make titles of main points as arguments (something you claim about the speech/speaker), and support those points with good reasons and quoted examples from the speech, not just assertions. Analyze not just what was done in the speech, but how it was done, perhaps why it was done, and whether or not it was effective. Assess ways of improving the speech as a way of criticizing choices that the rhetor made. 4) Provide a main point assessing the Effect of the speech, based on your canon analysis, and include a final section tying things together in some way. This should be more than just concluding remarks, rather, it should answer the “so what” question. What do we get out of this analysis? 5) Paper Requirements: *5-7 pages, TYPED, 12-point font, 1″ margins (This does not include the outline, title page, or bibliography). *USE TITLES TO SEPARATE OUT MAIN POINTS OF THE PAPER FOR CLARITY. *ATTACH AN OVERVIEW OUTLINE OF THE PAPER after the title page (1-2 pages). Remember to work from the outline in writing the paper–don’t draw up the outline after the paper is written. *YOU MUST USE AT LEAST THREE (3) OUTSIDE SOURCES which must be quoted or referred to with a correct citation that points to a specific Reference. I would expect at least one source for the Context information, at least one or two quotes from the speech in your analysis, and at least one source to help evaluate the Effect of the speech. *All papers must follow APA Style for proper source citation, quote formatting, and reference construction. *You MUST give a full and correct reference for the speech in the bibliography. *ALL IN ONE FILE, PLEASE (Don’t submit separate files for bib, title, etc.). The submitted paper should include title page, outline, body of the essay, references, copy of the speech (or URL to an online copy). 6) Avoid common novice errors A) Avoid presenting a “laundry list” of concepts and devoting a paragraph to each. Focus on two or three major ideas and develop them in depth. I expect no more than 5 main points: usually Context, 3 Canon elements (pick 3 from Ethos, Logos, Pathos, Style, Delivery, Memory, Arrangement), and Effect. I expect at least ONE PAGE (3-5 paragraphs) of analysis and examples for every main point. B) Evaluate and criticize, don’t just describe. Try and get beyond your gut reaction and your description of the speech to analyze appeals, interpret different strategies, and really evaluate impact(s) of the speech. You might identify an argument, but you need to go further and critique it, evaluate it, make a judgement about how strong or weak it is, and why. If you have a main point that doesn’t critique a canon element, odds are high that you are describing rather than critiquing. C) Use critical concepts in your analysis. Use the critical vocabulary! When we talk about Ethos, we analyze competence, character, shared values and charisma, so talking about “credibility” generally is not acceptable. I expect to see you using the vocabulary we learn to help analyze your artifacts. By focusing on and developing the critical vocabulary, you will more easily create full and complete papers.