Do I have maybe a point that's so tiny it feels kind of like a weird outlier?
So, I look at that point, I've got to either cut that, or
absorb it into another point.
Let's say I've got a really good point or example,
something I just love, but it doesn't really justify a position all on its own.
So, if I've got something like that I start looking for
my reliable places for excess speech storage.
I'm looking in the introduction and the conclusion.
[COUGH] So, if I've got a great little factoid or
story, I can toss that into the intro.
Those opening lines are usually pretty good for
interesting stuff that relates to the topic, but can't really stand on its own.
I like using the conclusion for arguments and evidence that are good, but
maybe I don't have enough time for in this speech.
So I get to finish the speech and be like, and
that's not even getting into the issue about blah, blah, blah, right?
I get to be like, I know so
much about the topic here's another idea I don't even have time for it.
But all of this sort of moving around, speech revision is just bump and wiggly.
You got to play around with the speech to find the fit
between the support key points and topics.
So, let me show you an example.
So, I drafted up a speech on American presidential debate.
I normally do this type of talk, go figure, once every four years or so.
And when I started the thesis was just that
American presidential debates are new, and you can see the outline here.
So, my thesis is, the genre of American Presidential debates is quite new.
We didn't have a single presidential debate until 1960, it took until 76 for
debates to become regular, and we've had debates every election since 76.
So, I prepped to that, and I talked it through.
But I felt like, after I performed it,
I felt like the second point wasn't really pulling its weight.
It's too short in comparison.
Now, on the other hand, the third point felt like it needed to focus just on
the rarity of presidential debates.
When I practiced it, that really felt like the interesting part.
I wanted to talk more about that.
So, I realized that in the entire speech,
I wanted to talk not only about how debates were new, right?
They're only in the past few decades, but
I also wanted to talk about how they were uncommon.
The office of the presidency kind of needed to adapt to this new thing.
So, I sat down and I changed the main points and the thesis.
We can see that here.
I took that second weak point and I just made it a sub point,
it was enough there but it was a sub point not a main point.
And then I expanded my old third point into a whole new point about
debates being uncommon.
So, I had made those changes and that meant I had to change the thesis.
I see the thesis as sort of a promise of the speech, like hey,
here's what I'm going to be talking about.
So, if you look at this, my new thesis is just a composite of my two points.
So, one point shows newness, and the other point shows uncommonness, and
the thesis now tries to capture that.
I got to say, I often find myself doing that.
I need to come up with a thesis or a topic to start writing, but
I know it's going to change by the end of the process.
Basically, I want that thesis at the end to accurately reflect
what I'm doing in the speech.