Daniel Carissimi - A History All Its Own

[@SmartyPants0715]

This was simply genius! Good job kiddo!

[@richardyoon1]

great intro! love your face.

[@SmartyPants0715]

Bravo!

[@Mercy055]

wow. that was amazing:]

[@readthesecomments]

very relevant problem

[@jilonli]

Very...interesting speaking style.

[@TheMarsht]

One thing I see in this speech that would give me reason to give him the 2, is that he doesn't seem as natural of a speaker as Laura. Yes, his speech was very good, and some would argue that it had a better message and better organization than Laura's. But the judges are also looking at the presentation of the speech as well as the writing. Still, he deserved to be in the top half of that round.

[@julianlutz1221]

The part toward the beginning where he tells us what he is going to talk about

[@Exdeath47]

I think that first place should have been dropped to third and 3rd and 2nd should have moved up a place. This speech has a very well thought out message.

[@SamPownell]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? even at this level, after their opening they layout what the parts of their speech are? like a freaking fourth grade essay. granted other than that i like this but seriously? is there a rule that you have to do that or something?

[@Raider17]

Gimmicky, but quite frankly I would have rated him first. My city hosted Nationals my senior year in 1984, and I've watched every final I could since. And this rule still holds true: 2nd place is usually better. The exceptions being debate and extemp.

[@Rabiosachica]

@spaceeskimo11t Obviously you've never written a speech for oratory, public address, or just about anything for forensics. That was his thesis statement. Although there is no official rule for it, without a thesis statement, his speech lacks organization and the audience is like "what the hell is he talking about?"

[@keshavtennisplayer]

Josh Gad of '99 deserved first. He invented the "sit-down" gimmick people have been so unoriginally doing to death ever since.

[@Joshuaying]

he's swaying o.o but it was a well written oratory

[@Pikamaster]

... So these are pro OO. Gosh darn my self esteem...

[@Iaintertainment]

A lot of his scripted outbursts seem overly put on. His body language also gets sloppy (overly loose and bouncy arms, in particular). I have mixed feelings about them, since he's a lot more interesting when he drops the jokes and just starts teaching us. I love the mechanic analogy. I LOVE the Holocaust debate anecdote. The best part of the speech comes when he describes simple, real-world solutions to the problem he's outlined. I came away from this speech feeling inspired to learn.

[@Iaintertainment]

He's a very compelling speaker, but he's best when he isn't laying on the humor. The introduction is kinda funny, but smacks of insincerity (he didn't actually start a communist revolution, no audience member will relate to the obviously false story, and, most importantly, he doesn't make a joke acknowledging the ridiculousness of his claim).