Speech and Debate


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 
 

 Nathaniel Sprecher's Platform Speech Topic

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Nathaniel Sprecher



Number of posts : 6
Registration date : 2010-09-08

PostSubject: Nathaniel Sprecher's Platform Speech Topic   Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:37 pm

Dear Mrs. Gray,

Here is my idea for the thesis for OO:

The ancients were more sophisticated than we give them credit for.

Here are my ideas for three main points:

. Navigation--Piri Reis map.

. Technology--Antikythera Mechanism.

. Technology--Baghdad Battery.

If this looks okay to you, I'll go ahead and do a complete outline with evidence defined.

Thanks, Mrs. Gray,

Nathaniel
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mrs. gray
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 174
Age : 54
Location : Cary NC
Humor : LOVES TO LAUGH!
Registration date : 2007-11-29

PostSubject: Ideas for speech   Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:26 am

Nathaniel, This is a great start. I would like to think of a way we could more creatively word your thesis into a simple and more repeatable tag line. something like: Let's give the ancients credit where credit is due; or Ancients left their fingerprints throughout our history.
Remember one of the things you'll need to keep in mind as you develop this speech: It needs to be creatively developed to keep your listener interested and invested into what you are speaking about.
When you get a chance could you share with me how you intend to introduce this speech?
Thanks
Mrs. Gray
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Nathaniel Sprecher



Number of posts : 6
Registration date : 2010-09-08

PostSubject: Re: Nathaniel Sprecher's Platform Speech Topic   Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:10 pm

Thanks, Mrs. Gray. I'll get started on the intro next and get back to you as soon as I can.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Nathaniel Sprecher



Number of posts : 6
Registration date : 2010-09-08

PostSubject: Introduction   Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:14 pm

Mrs. Gray, here's my intro to my speech. Thanks.

Intro
The cracking of whips, the straining of men. Slaves, toiling over hot sand, under hot sun; heaving huge blocks, tons each, toward one destination. Over the next rise, it comes into view: a great pyramid, incomplete, yet no less spectacular. The engineers, in the shade of an open pavilion, study the plans. But these are no ordinary planners; these are… CATS…. And one of the cats, sitting next to a task master, observing the men, suddenly starts and exclaims, “Whoa, I just had a terrible thought…. Do you suppose 5,000 years from now, these [dolts] are going to get all the credit?” (long pause)

This illustration by the cartoonist of “Non Sequitur” makes a stinging point: when we see advancement in ancient man, we often look to non-human intelligence as the source, but it doesn‘t occur to us that ancient man may have been capable after all.

Machines, batteries, and computers are all things that we take to be fairly modern, but what if they existed thousands of years ago? What if primitive man wasn’t so primitive after all? What if they had technology even rivaling our own? Of course whether this is believed or not depends on one’s world view, if you believe that man was and always has been made in God’s image, then of course man was intelligent enough to obtain a great degree of advancement, but if you believe we are all the product of chance, then it seems impossible that the ancients could have achieved that level of technology. So which view is correct? Which glasses should we look through? By the end of this speech, I hope you will not only know the answer, but also have a new viewpoint on ancient man.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mrs. gray
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 174
Age : 54
Location : Cary NC
Humor : LOVES TO LAUGH!
Registration date : 2007-11-29

PostSubject: Love this so far! Just a few suggestions   Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:46 pm

Nathaniel, I love this so far, very creative, and if you deliver it with some "dramatic eloquence" it will serve to get your audiences attention!

Here are just a few picky suggestions.

You brought in the fact that you were illustrating this scene from a "Non Sequitor" cartoon later on in the speech. I would like to suggest that you start by saying who the illustrator is while making it clear that you are in a sense, painting a picture for your audience....( This allows you to give credit in advance of mentioning this comic, you will also need to have a source for this comic strip to provide for script submission just FYI )

For example: Wiley Miller a famous illustrator for the Non Sequitor comic strip, puts his pen to paper and illustrates the following comical scene... we see, whips cracking and men toiling and straining over hot sand, under a hot sun; heaving huge blocks, tons each, towards one destination. Over the next hill a great pyramid comes into view. We see two engineers, standing in the shade of a pavilion, studying the construction plans. But these are no ordinary engineers, in fact they are cats, personified, who are clearly in charge of the action. One cat leans to to the other cat and exclaims, “Whoa, I just had a terrible thought…. Do you suppose 5,000 years from now, these [dolts] are going to get all the credit?” (long pause)
This cartoon makes a stinging point: when we see advancement in ancient man, we often look to non-human intelligence as the source, but it doesn‘t occur to us that ancient man may have been capable after all.

Machines, batteries, and computers are all things that we take to be fairly modern, but what if they existed thousands of years ago? What if primitive man wasn’t so primitive after all? What if they had technology even rivaling our own today? Of course whether this is believed or not depends on one’s world view, if you believe that man was and always has been made in God’s image, then of course man was intelligent enough to obtain a great degree of advancement, but if you believe we are all the product of chance, then it seems impossible that the ancients could have achieved that level of technology. So which view is correct? Which glasses should we look through? By the end of this speech, I hope you will not only know the answer, but also have a new viewpoint on ancient man.

Let me know if you have thoughts or concerns on this.
Thanks
Mrs. Gray
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Nathaniel Sprecher



Number of posts : 6
Registration date : 2010-09-08

PostSubject: Introduction   Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:34 am

Thanks a lot for your reply, Mrs. Gray. I thought that by jumping into the description I could catch the audience more by surprise. I'm working through your comments. Thanks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Nathaniel Sprecher



Number of posts : 6
Registration date : 2010-09-08

PostSubject: NDS Platform Speech First Draft   Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:21 am

Dear Mrs. Gray,

Here is the first draft of the complete speech. Can I meet with you this Wednesday for an initial read-through to receive tips on delivery?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Antikythera Mechanism
Nathaniel Sprecher

Whips are cracking; men are straining; slaves are toiling over hot sand, under a hot sun, heaving huge blocks, tons each, toward one destination. Over the next rise, it comes into view: a great pyramid, incomplete, yet no less spectacular. The engineers, in the shade of an open pavilion, study the plans. But these are no ordinary engineers; these engineers are… CATS…. , guiding the proceedings. And one of the cats, sitting next to a whip-cracking tabby, observes the men, then suddenly starts and exclaims, “Whoa, I just had a terrible thought…. Do you suppose 5,000 years from now, these [dolts] are going to get all the credit?” This illustration by Wiley Miller, cartoonist of “Non Sequitur,” makes a stinging point: when we see advancement in ancient man, we often look to non-human intelligence as the source. It doesn‘t occur to us that ancient man may have been intelligent after all.

Machines, batteries, and computers are all things that we take to be fairly modern, but what if they existed thousands of years ago? What if “the primitives” weren’t so primitive after all? What if they had technology even rivaling our own today? Archaeologists have uncovered many examples of scientific achievement among the ruins left behind by the ancients. Consider Khufu’s Great Pyramid for a moment. Authors Ashton and Down note its vertices point in the exact directions of true north, south, east and west, “indicating an advanced knowledge of astronomy and surveying.” Besides that, the dimensions of this pyramid show mathematical advancement, specifically, a knowledge of pi long before the Greeks (Ashton and Down 39-40). Next, consider the Bagdad battery. Steven M. Collins reports the discovery of multiple electric batteries in Parthian settlements around Baghdad, dating to 2,000 years ago (110). Finally, consider the Antikythera mechanism, an ancient astronomical computer dating to roughly 200 B.C. Is it possible that the ancients had the intelligence required to construct a mechanical computer? Of course, whether this is believed or not depends on your worldview. If you believe we are all the product of chance, then it seems impossible that the ancients could have achieved that level of technology. If you believe that man was and always has been made in God’s image, then, of course, man was intelligent enough to obtain a great degree of advancement, even astronomical computers. So which view is correct? Which glasses should we look through? By the end of this speech, I hope you will not only know the answer, but also have a new viewpoint on ancient man, all through the story the Antikythera mechanism.
In the year 1901, off of the tiny island of Antikythera, between Crete and mainland Greece, sponge divers chanced upon the wreck of an ancient Roman ship, carrying Greek plunder. This ship, which sailed in roughly the first century B.C., had been filled with many marble sculptures, now deformed by millennia in the sea. What seemed more significant were the better-preserved bronze statues which attracted much attention due to their great beauty. The divers also recovered, as author and researcher Tony Freeth puts it, “an undistinguished, heavily calcified lump the size of a phone book” (“Decoding an Ancient Computer”). Since the museum curators did not think that this “lump” was important, they just stuck it in a crate in a back room in the Athens National Archaeological Museum. After several months, the artifact cracked open, “revealing traces of gear wheels, precisely marked circular scales and inscriptions in Greek” (Marchant “The Antikythera”). Interest was sparked. Realization dawned that this was not an ordinary archaeological find. Examination of the artifact was finally begun. (Marchant Decoding 4-30)

The only problem in progressing with the research was the inability to see the inside of what became known as the Antikythera mechanism. The outline of its gearwheels could be seen. The largest wheel had a square hole in the center, implying that there might have been an axle, perhaps for a hand crank, used for operating this calculator. One small gear had about “200 tiny, jagged teeth,… so small that they could only be counted with the help of a magnifying glass” (Marchant Decoding 39). Although the unusual artifact was inspected numerous times, the research was always stunted: scientists were unable to scrutinize below the surface. But one thing that they could discern was that this was no ordinary artifact.

Then, almost a century later, Tony Freeth came on the scene. He attacked the puzzle in two ways. Using a light dome, he essentially photographed the object while illuminating it from many different angles. He was then able to manipulate the lighting digitally in hope of reading the Greek inscriptions that had previously been illegible. Moreover, he hired X-tek to do extensive x-raying on the mechanism. This company’s x-ray equipment was much like a hospital CT scanner, only on a more powerful scale (Freeth “Decoding”). Hoping to find the artifact’s inner workings, Freeth and company went to Athens. The results were amazing!

The Antikythera mechanism was clearly constructed with advanced precision. Tightly fitting bronze gearwheels, gear trains, and spiral dials greeted the researchers’ expectant eyes. Gauges with pointers on the front and back displayed data with astounding accuracy. Numerous inscriptions, some of which included mechanical terms, astronomical terms, and operating instructions, caused much excitement (Marchant Decoding 242-43). But what exactly could this thing do? To operate the mechanism, you would turn the handle on the side of the box to set the current date, according to the Metonic cycle, a 19-year, 235-month timetable, or according to the Egyptian, 365-day calendar, adjusting for one day every fourth year, a leap year. The pointers would then indicate the position of the sun and moon relative to the earth, the constellations which would appear in the sky, the timing of any eclipses, and even, it is speculated, the positions of the planets (“Astronomical Clockwork”). Now let’s step back a moment. Here was a device that could set the date and time by the turn of a crank and find the location of the celestial bodies relative to the earth for that time. Now don’t take this for granted. For it would have been difficult enough had the planets’ orbits been circular, but no! The orbits of the moon and planets are ellipses! To simulate these orbits required “epicyclic gearing--small wheels riding around on bigger wheels” (Marchant “Antikithera”). The researchers were astounded by this spectacular gearing.

There is no doubt that this was an extraordinary find. Yet we know that it was not unique. In fact, it’s all rather ironic, because Cicero, the Roman author, had spoken of Archimedes developing a similar mechanism. Cicero writes, “The invention of Archimedes deserves special admiration because he had thought out a way to represent accurately by a single device for turning the globe those various and divergent movements with their different rates of speed” (Marchant “Antikythera”). Scientists dismissed Cicero’s writings as false. Why didn’t the scholars believe him? Because the paradigm dictates that ancient man was primitive, and because no such device had ever been uncovered. You see, it all boils down to worldview. The way you look at the evidence determines the theory. The evidence of the Antikythera mechanism, best supports the view that ancient man was intelligent after all. “Do you suppose five thousand years from now, these [dolts] are going to get all the credit?” (Wiley).




Works Cited

Ashton, John, and David Down. Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline. Green Forest, AR: Master Books Inc., 2006.

“Astronomical Clockwork.” Scientific American December 2009. 19 October 2010 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=45047295&site=ehost-live>.

Collins, Steven M. Parthia: The Forgotten Ancient Superpower And Its Role In Biblical History. Royal Oak, MI: Bible Blessings, 2003.

Freeth, Tony, et al. “Calendars with Olympiad display and eclipse prediction on the Antikythera Mechanism.” Nature 31 July 2008. 19 October 2010 <http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=33380585&site=ehost-live>.

Freeth, Tony. “Decoding an Ancient Computer.” Scientific American December 2009. 19 October 2010 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=f5h&AN=45047022&site=ehost-live>.

Marchant, Jo. “The Antikythera: lost secret of the ancients.” New Scientist 13 December 2008. 19 October 2010 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=f5h&AN=35938038&site=ehost-live>.

Marchant, Jo. Decoding the Heavens: A 2,000-Year-Old Computer-- And the Century-Long Search to Discover Its Secrets. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2009.

Miller, Wiley. “Non Sequitur.” Cartoon. News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) 29 September 2010.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THANKS, MRS. GRAY.



Back to top Go down
View user profile
mrs. gray
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 174
Age : 54
Location : Cary NC
Humor : LOVES TO LAUGH!
Registration date : 2007-11-29

PostSubject: Great job with just a few edits for now   Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:48 pm

Nathan, I so enjoyed reading through this informative speech. I am going to take some additional time tomorrow to read it through and make some mechanical suggestions, but before I do this I want to note one very important issue that is related to complying with NCFCA rules. Since this is a speech you will need to develop phrases that site your sources/ quotes before you deliver information that is directly quoted or paraphrased.
This is so that you comply with the rule:

All outside sources must be cited within the speech. This refers to direct quotations, theories, concepts, and general ideas.

Quote :
Authors Ashton and Down note its vertices point in the exact directions of true north, south, east and west, “indicating an advanced knowledge of astronomy and surveying.” Besides that, the dimensions of this pyramid show mathematical advancement, specifically, a knowledge of pi long before the Greeks (Ashton and Down 39-40). Next, consider the Bagdad battery. Steven M. Collins reports the discovery of multiple electric batteries in Parthian settlements around Baghdad, dating to 2,000 years ago (110).

You've given credit here but I would suggest that you include the title of the book or article too. For example:

Authors Ashton and Downs in their book, Unwrapping the Pharoahs, note how the vertices..........

or
According to Tony Freeth in his book Decoding an Ancient Computer, The divers also recovered, “an undistinguished, heavily calcified lump the size of a phone book” (“Decoding an Ancient Computer”).

The goal is to make sure that your judge would be able to look up the source if they desired to do so.

These phrases, that give credit to the author,would need to be placed before you quote or paraphrase an outside source. The exception to this would be when you continue quoting the same author several times in a row. You could simply say the author's names in this instance.

Lets plan on meeting on Dec. 1st and I'll try to make some time before Thanksgiving break to offer a few more edits via the forum.

Thanks
Mrs. Gray
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Nathaniel Sprecher



Number of posts : 6
Registration date : 2010-09-08

PostSubject: Meet December 1st   Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:43 pm

Thanks, Mrs. Gray. I'll see you on December 1st.

Nathaniel
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Nathaniel Sprecher's Platform Speech Topic   

Back to top Go down
 
Nathaniel Sprecher's Platform Speech Topic
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Vibration Platform
» Indirect Speech (Questions): Lesson + Practice+ Key
» Shocking Giant Hologram of Turkish Prime Minister Delivers Speech
» Platform Mediumship.
» First discussion topic - BREXIT

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Speech and Debate :: Platform Speech Outlines 2010 :: speeches-
Jump to: