Full Impromptu Speech: "Should the Possession of Marijuana be Decriminalized?" by Frederick Garvin

Audience Analysis

Because Frederick's topic is controversial, he relies on the similarity between himself and the audience for persuasive power. When he alludes to President Clinton's marijuana use, and when he asks: "How many of you can remember that your teachers or parents might have said anything resembling this: 'Marijuana leads to harder drugs,'" he relates to his audience as one of them.

Content and Supporting Ideas

Frederick argues for decriminalizing the use of marijuana which he distinguishes from possessing marijuana.

Frederick's three main points are: 1) why marijuana use should not be decriminalized; 2) why it should be legalized; and 3) why blanket prohibition of marijuana use is hypocritical.

In his first main point he uses a straw person fallacy to imply that parents don't know what they're talking about when they say that marijuana use leads to harder drugs. To support his second main point Frederick uses comparison reasoning, paralleling marijuana with tobacco and alcohol. This reasoning fails when he asserts that they were never outlawed in our history, which is inaccurate about alcohol. The third point is an ad hominem argument. He attacks "all people in authority" as "hypocrites" rather than addressing whether or not to decriminalize marijuana use.

Introduction/Transitions/Conclusion

Frederick's introduction identifies his thesis and previews the three main points he intends to cover. His reference to President Clinton serves as his attention getter.

Frederick uses effective and varied transitions. He provides succinct internal summaries and cues the audience well for topic shifts.

His conclusion clarifies that he isn't advocating the use of marijuana, only that it should be decriminalized. He closes calling his opposition hypocrites which diverts from what he initially called "the real question"—whether or not smoking marijuana should be legal.

Delivery

Fredrick has a conversational style. His voice is animated and carries conviction. His gestures are all very similar. He frequently leans against the lectern and looks down often at his notes. He would distance himself less from the audience with more direct eye contact.