PDA

View Full Version : What would you speak about?




justinc.1089
02-14-2011, 03:45 AM
If you could choose just one topic to speak about to an audience, what would it be?

Stated differently as the judge would say, if you were running in an election, or doing something similar, what would your message to everyone listening be?

I've contemplated this a lot myself because I know one day in the future I will run for some office. I don't know what, I don't know when, or even how or if I will have the money to ever, but I know that I will do it because I have that tenacity to fight for liberty in me, like all of you do.

So, while I'm in college, each time I have to give a presentation or speech to a class where I get to choose my topic, I always think about what I should do it on because I would like to figure out what message I would want to give to people. In other words, I want to figure out the angle I want to approach our message of liberty from.

Its the same thing when you break it down really. But if you look at different candidates running their campaigns are always presented a little differently, even if they're part of the liberty movement. The difference in Ron and Rand's rhetoric comes to my mind as a great example.

I have given a speech about Jefferson before, a speech about taxation and the income tax before, and maybe one other one as well, but if so its not coming to me right now.

I don't think focusing on taxation, or the income tax, is a good idea though. Back when I chose that topic I did that because I figured since it was a huge part of the documentary Freedom to Fascism, and that documentary resonated with me, that talking about that was a good idea, but I think I was wrong. Conservatives of all types, Republicans, Libertarians, even some liberals and Democrats, have talked about reducing and/or eliminating taxes for forever. Taxation DOES relate to the freedom message, but it is not the freedom message itself.

Ron Paul's speeches are great, and I think he has the best way of presenting the freedom message, but his message gets into too many specific matters for me to simply imitate his style. If you take out the specifics, then there isn't much left. I'm not saying Paul should take them out, I'm just saying I can't and don't need to talk about that stuff right now to people.

I really think one day when I run for office my campaign would be summarized as being for liberty, peace, and prosperity. So I'm thinking of breaking down my message by those three areas, even though they overlap, and then refining each area. Then they can be put back together at the conclusion as one since they are one.

(A free society is peaceful and prosperous, a peaceful society is prosperous and free, and a prosperous society is free and peaceful).

For my speech now, I'm going to go in either the liberty or peace direction I think, because standing on their own as a theme to a speech, I think those can make for a more moving speech. Although that's not to say speaking about a prosperous society won't make for a moving speech because it does.

Do you guys think I should focus on speaking about peace or liberty? And how should I break either of those down?

I want to begin crafting my message now while I have many years to perfect it so that hopefully one day I would actually be able to succeed in being elected for something. I want to take advantage of speaking in college to practice a very crude version of that message basically.

I'm mostly just brainstorming out loud here, and looking for advice from you guys as to how you would suggest attempting to convey the ideas of liberty without necessarily politicizing them too much, although a little is ok.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-14-2011, 03:48 AM
War and Central Banking / Fiatism. That is the root.

Having said that, each person is different and the Division of Labor works in intellectual capacities as it does in production. Choose what you value the most. We all cannot be experts in every field though as we may try.

justinc.1089
02-14-2011, 04:17 AM
War and Central Banking / Fiatism. That is the root.

Having said that, each person is different and the Division of Labor works in intellectual capacities as it does in production. Choose what you value the most. We all cannot be experts in every field though as we may try.


I have to kind of respectfully disagree a little with you. Too much militarization/ too big of a military-industrial complex and a fiat money system ARE SERIOUS problems that are catastrophic, but they are not the roots.

If they were the roots, then the periods of history where there was both peace and a commodity-backed currency would have been much better than they were. Those societies also would not have devolved into developing fiat money and powerful military industries either, if those things were the cause of other problems.

The root of the problem is in a society's lack of respect for liberty, prosperity, and peace.

When the country first began, the early Americans respected liberty for awhile, and thus America eventually became prosperous and peaceful as well for a time. Once Americans lost respect for liberty, prosperity, and peace, our problems gradually worsened over time.

If people disregard liberty, prosperity, and peace, then eventually serious problems that create more problems, like fiat money and military industrial complexes, come about.

If we are to ever progress beyond those problems, we have to address why things like fiat money and war machines/ military industrial complexes even come into existence. People have to learn they cannot "secure" their own prosperity with a fiat money system by devaluing, or "disrespecting" others' prosperity because it destroys their own prosperity in the process as well, for an example.

nayjevin
02-14-2011, 04:28 AM
this is the order i think of them,
liberty - being free to act
prosperity - being free to trade
peace - not getting into war over it

and they are good topics. might use the philosophy of liberty (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=philosophy+of+liberty) for ideas for the liberty part, letting be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yquh-s97qx8) for the prosperity part. not sure about the peace one. hard to do without focusing on the lack of it :)

lynnf
02-14-2011, 04:43 AM
If you could choose just one topic to speak about to an audience, what would it be?

Stated differently as the judge would say, if you were running in an election, or doing something similar, what would your message to everyone listening be?

I've contemplated this a lot myself because I know one day in the future I will run for some office. I don't know what, I don't know when, or even how or if I will have the money to ever, but I know that I will do it because I have that tenacity to fight for liberty in me, like all of you do.

So, while I'm in college, each time I have to give a presentation or speech to a class where I get to choose my topic, I always think about what I should do it on because I would like to figure out what message I would want to give to people. In other words, I want to figure out the angle I want to approach our message of liberty from.

Its the same thing when you break it down really. But if you look at different candidates running their campaigns are always presented a little differently, even if they're part of the liberty movement. The difference in Ron and Rand's rhetoric comes to my mind as a great example.

I have given a speech about Jefferson before, a speech about taxation and the income tax before, and maybe one other one as well, but if so its not coming to me right now.

I don't think focusing on taxation, or the income tax, is a good idea though. Back when I chose that topic I did that because I figured since it was a huge part of the documentary Freedom to Fascism, and that documentary resonated with me, that talking about that was a good idea, but I think I was wrong. Conservatives of all types, Republicans, Libertarians, even some liberals and Democrats, have talked about reducing and/or eliminating taxes for forever. Taxation DOES relate to the freedom message, but it is not the freedom message itself.

Ron Paul's speeches are great, and I think he has the best way of presenting the freedom message, but his message gets into too many specific matters for me to simply imitate his style. If you take out the specifics, then there isn't much left. I'm not saying Paul should take them out, I'm just saying I can't and don't need to talk about that stuff right now to people.

I really think one day when I run for office my campaign would be summarized as being for liberty, peace, and prosperity. So I'm thinking of breaking down my message by those three areas, even though they overlap, and then refining each area. Then they can be put back together at the conclusion as one since they are one.

(A free society is peaceful and prosperous, a peaceful society is prosperous and free, and a prosperous society is free and peaceful).

For my speech now, I'm going to go in either the liberty or peace direction I think, because standing on their own as a theme to a speech, I think those can make for a more moving speech. Although that's not to say speaking about a prosperous society won't make for a moving speech because it does.

Do you guys think I should focus on speaking about peace or liberty? And how should I break either of those down?

I want to begin crafting my message now while I have many years to perfect it so that hopefully one day I would actually be able to succeed in being elected for something. I want to take advantage of speaking in college to practice a very crude version of that message basically.

I'm mostly just brainstorming out loud here, and looking for advice from you guys as to how you would suggest attempting to convey the ideas of liberty without necessarily politicizing them too much, although a little is ok.

it would be how UN Agenda 21 has been used to integrate communism into our country at all levels of government under the guise of environmental regulation. Agenda 21 has an economic component under which the "free trade" agreements are the means of income redistribution at the national level. At the local level, income redistribution will come as subsidies for rent and other things, taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". but remember -- you are supporting the environment with all these "smart" and "sustainable" programs!



http://www.freedomadvocates.org

lynn

BuddyRey
02-14-2011, 08:48 AM
Having come from a very far-left/Marxist perspective before Ron Paul converted me to libertarian ideas, I think I would like to deliver a lecture on how liberty is a far more peaceful, compassionate, and morally just way of doing things. Most people are already beginning to figure out why liberty works better, but I'd like to point out to very idealistic people (like me) how it also "feels" better on an intuitive level.

Gaius1981
02-14-2011, 09:08 AM
I think it's important that you make both the moral case for libertarianism, as well as the utilitarian case for libertarianism, without sounding like a cold capitalist or a naive hippie. That way, you'll appeal to both idealists and realists/pragmatists. Like the Judge, you should probably say that we get our rights from our humanity (as opposed to from God, as that may turn off some people). It might be wise to focus on making your audience understand the law of unintended consequences, in regards to both economics and foreign policy. If people start to understand how coercive intervention always generates negative long-term consequences and blowback, they're far more likely to come around to libertarianism.

BuddyRey
02-14-2011, 09:16 AM
I think it's important that you make both the moral case for libertarianism, as well as the utilitarian case for libertarianism, without sounding like a cold capitalist or a naive hippie.

But I am a naive hippie! :D

I see what you mean though. Most people won't be convinced by either emotional or logical arguments alone. I just happen to remember, being a Marxist, logic was the last thing I used to base my philosophy on, emotion being the very first. They call them "bleeding hearts" for a reason.

Elwar
02-14-2011, 09:21 AM
I speak at Toastmasters quite a bit. I'd say to just have several speeches focussed mainly on the interest of your audience.

There aren't a whole lot of times where your audience is just a "generic" grouping of people.

In front of Republicans you talk about cutting spending and lower taxes.

In front of a more liberal crowd you talk about ending the war and promoting civil liberty.

In front of a teacher's union you talk about getting the beaurocrats out of the teaching business, giving teachers more freedom to do what they do best.

In front of a bunch of financial folks you talk about strong currencies and the Federal Reserve...

Pericles
02-14-2011, 09:46 AM
To realize our full potential as humans, liberty is vital. In order to maximize liberty, certain conditions are necessary, which we have learned from history. Liberty requires a very limited government, respect for the individual's natural rights, and the protection of private property. Fulfilling these conditions has lead to peace and prosperity throughout history.

Let us examine our current condition ............

Travlyr
02-14-2011, 11:57 AM
Honesty vs. Dishonesty - Real vs. Fake - Truth vs. Lie - Justice vs. Injustice

At first those may appear to be four topics, but they are tied together as one because they are all fundamental to liberty. Against better judgments shared to us from Jefferson and Washington, since about 1860 the people have had to endure long periods of paper money.


Thomas Jefferson
"The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

George Washington
"Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice." -- George Washington, in a letter to J. Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787

Real money is honest which means that we can be truthful in our dealings and find justice.
Paper money is fake & dishonest which requires a lie to promote it consequently creating injustice.




If they were the roots, then the periods of history where there was both peace and a commodity-backed currency would have been much better than they were.
Historical periods of peace and laissez-faire capitalism were, for the most part, very good times for the people. It has not been in the best interests of recent historians to write about the prosperous times of liberty because it is tough to 'control' free people. But read diaries of people from early America to learn that, despite all the struggles, people enjoyed their adventurous lives and were quite prosperous ... innovation was virtually unbridled.


Those societies also would not have devolved into developing fiat money and powerful military industries either, if those things were the cause of other problems.The counterfeiters of fiat money are the root of our enslavement. Unlimited money buys the finest everything including military police to control others. Currently central banks are the ONLY ones who can legally (counterfeit) create money out-of-nothing.

Imagine, for a moment, that you figured a way to print as many $100 bills as you wanted and never get caught. Would you take a job? Would you start a business? Let's use the dairy business as an example. Would you raise milk cows, milking, feeding, and watering every morning at 6 AM and again at 6 PM, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/year to sell milk and cheese for profits?

Not likely. You would likely take your wads of $100 bills, just like the owners of the central banks do, and travel around the world enjoying mansions, cars, planes, vacation spots, fine dining, beautiful sights, and delightful trinkets. The power to counterfeit money without losing freedom is absolute power. That is why they demonize Ron Paul & others who speak the truth.


The root of the problem is in a society's lack of respect for liberty, prosperity, and peace.
People don't respect liberty because they don't understand it.

Mob mentality is problematic. Most people will 'go along to get along'. Some people like to be in charge, others don't care, and still others want nothing to do with being told what to do or when to do it. Of the three types of people, the take charge people do take charge. The followers don't care as long as they get by, so liberty lovers become the minority. The people in charge use fear to convince the followers to force the freedom lovers into submission for the common good.


When the country first began, the early Americans respected liberty for awhile, and thus America eventually became prosperous and peaceful as well for a time. Once Americans lost respect for liberty, prosperity, and peace, our problems gradually worsened over time.

If people disregard liberty, prosperity, and peace, then eventually serious problems that create more problems, like fiat money and military industrial complexes, come about.
Again, fiat money is the cause of our problems. Using debasement of currency as a means of control is as old as society itself. It is designed that way for the benefit of the powers-that-be. They use their unlimited money supply, divide and conquer techniques mixed with fear to keep us under their control: black vs. white, liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left, Republican vs. Democrat, terrorists vs. freedom, Muslims vs. Christians, etc.


If we are to ever progress beyond those problems, we have to address why things like fiat money and war machines/ military industrial complexes even come into existence. People have to learn they cannot "secure" their own prosperity with a fiat money system by devaluing, or "disrespecting" others' prosperity because it destroys their own prosperity in the process as well, for an example.
Absolutely. Life is a natural right. Life requires air, water and land (to raise food). Those are our birthrights. Understanding that all wealth comes from the earth means that to distribute wealth fairly then landownership among individuals is fundamental to liberty. Real truthful honesty promotes prosperity, peace, and justice.

__27__
02-14-2011, 12:11 PM
NAP. Once someone accepts NAP the rest is all downhill.

fisharmor
02-14-2011, 12:35 PM
I think if I were campaigning, my gut reaction would be to choose these bullet points.

1. War is bad for the economy.
This is more apparent recently - today's depression as a result of the war on terror, and the 70's inflationary recession due to Viet Nam.
Inflation to pay for WWI led to the Great Depression, and drastic, massive cuts after WWII are what saved the economy.

2. We are not free as long as we can't opt out of government programs.
We have no business calling ourselves a free country until we are free not to participate.

3. Monopolies may be bad, but cartels and guilds are worse.
If there is a way to bullet-point this, the world needs to know that several existing systems we live under are considerably worse than monopolies we've managed to vilify in the past. Case in point: the Fed, AMA, bar associations.

4. The market will provide. Maybe not as well as we want it to, but better than the alternatives.
If we're serious about improving our lot, we need to recognize that market forces are the quickest way to improve, and we need to recognize what we call the market is actually fascism.

5. The answer to these and other problems is always liberty.
Hate to parrot RP directly, but he's right.

hazek
02-14-2011, 12:43 PM
I would speak about money.

I would try and get the audience to learn how money first came to be, how paper money came to be, what is inflation/deflation and how they are being robbed on a daily basis. Then I'd switch to the central bank and how money comes into existence and how this is the single reason why everything sucks atm.


I think it's the single most important issue.

Elwar
02-14-2011, 01:40 PM
As an aside...if anyone wants to write up a 5-7 minute (inspirational) speech I'll present it at my Toastmasters club...

writing the speech is always so difficult, fine tuning it and such, I hardly get any time to practice it before I give it

The club is fairly a-political and is mainly a group of older people who come from every political persuasion.

I've found that Toastmasters has helped me to communicate a bit better in public and even one on one with people.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 01:44 PM
this is the order i think of them,
liberty - being free to act
prosperity - being free to trade
peace - not getting into war over it

and they are good topics. might use the philosophy of liberty (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=philosophy+of+liberty) for ideas for the liberty part, letting be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yquh-s97qx8) for the prosperity part. not sure about the peace one. hard to do without focusing on the lack of it :)

^^ This
One topic? it would be Liberty. All else stems from that.

bwlibertyman
02-14-2011, 01:56 PM
NAP. Once someone accepts NAP the rest is all downhill.

I agree. George ought to help is a great example. People don't like doing the dirty work for themselves. They'll let other people do it. If we can focus the conversation to say that people should force their will on other people than I think we're good. Most people have morals I believe.

Wesker1982
02-14-2011, 02:07 PM
NAP. Once someone accepts NAP the rest is all downhill.

+1

Travlyr
02-14-2011, 02:48 PM
I would speak about money.

I think it's the single most important issue.

No doubt about it. This is why Ron Paul writes and talks about it all the time. He want us to enjoy liberty, but it is impossible under fiat controls.

JoshLowry
02-14-2011, 02:57 PM
I'm really interested in reading Liberty Defined.

The concept of liberty needs to be clarified. We hear so many politicians say they support it, but in reality they don't even think you have self ownership of your body.

I came across an article (cant find it) that talked about how you have a sphere of liberty around you and that once you encroach on someone else's sphere, that's where your liberty stops. Freedom is actually a bad concept if it implies no consequence.

It's the golden rule that is summed up in every single religion. I think some of the morality that many miss from religion can be taught with the concept of liberty. The NAP is just another three word name for it.

Captain Shays
02-14-2011, 03:06 PM
I would give a speech on how the foreign policy that both the major parties embrace was invented by progressive Democrats and how it is the antithesis of what the founders and most people want for this country. That folks is the primary reason the Republicans say "he won't get elected". They KNOW if Ron Paul did get elected it would blow the cover of decades of their lies, countless unnecessary deaths and untold fortunes lost or transferred to the elites. They CAN'T Let him win for that very reason. It would totally disrupt their new world order.

speciallyblend
02-14-2011, 03:34 PM
I would show folks how grassroots marijuana activism can also be applied to winning majority votes in your local counties and state, for the republican party and activating grassroots from all parties to unite under our GOP!! I have 20 plus years in experience and plenty of references to prove it in Virginia and Colorado!! Ron Paul 2012 72% votes in my town and 3 counties i worked in:)

Travlyr
02-14-2011, 03:41 PM
I'm really interested in reading Liberty Defined.

The concept of liberty needs to be clarified. We hear so many politicians say they support it, but in reality they don't even think you have self ownership of your body.

I came across an article (cant find it) that talked about how you have a sphere of liberty around you and that once you encroach on someone else's sphere, that's where your liberty stops. Freedom is actually a bad concept if it implies no consequence.

It's the golden rule that is summed up in every single religion. I think some of the morality that many miss from religion can be taught with the concept of liberty. The NAP is just another three word name for it.
Nice! Same here. I have a copy of Liberty Defined pre-ordered, and I plan on reading it ASAP after I get it.

CableNewsJunkie
02-14-2011, 06:29 PM
I would talk about energy and how it relates to all aspects of life in a modern society.

justinc.1089
02-15-2011, 12:58 AM
Having come from a very far-left/Marxist perspective before Ron Paul converted me to libertarian ideas, I think I would like to deliver a lecture on how liberty is a far more peaceful, compassionate, and morally just way of doing things. Most people are already beginning to figure out why liberty works better, but I'd like to point out to very idealistic people (like me) how it also "feels" better on an intuitive level.


Very good point, and that is exactly why whenever I do a speech, presentation, or debate, I am certain that I advocate for my points both logically and morally as well. Some people think more logically in a more calculated manner, while others think morally in a more emotional manner. So its very important to grasp both ways to communicate whatever topic you speak about to people. If you know which they are, go that route, and if its a group, go both ways.

For example, you could say pre-emptive war is morally wrong, but you can also say we can't afford it. Both are correct but coming at the same idea that war is wrong from two different perspectives.

justinc.1089
02-15-2011, 01:03 AM
I would give a speech on how the foreign policy that both the major parties embrace was invented by progressive Democrats and how it is the antithesis of what the founders and most people want for this country. That folks is the primary reason the Republicans say "he won't get elected". They KNOW if Ron Paul did get elected it would blow the cover of decades of their lies, countless unnecessary deaths and untold fortunes lost or transferred to the elites. They CAN'T Let him win for that very reason. It would totally disrupt their new world order.

Pretty good topic idea, but I want to avoid making my speech too policitized this time. I want it to be more like if you really understand it you could take away the information and apply it to politicians, and figure out things like that on your own.

I have a professor that's somewhat liberal, a loud-mouth know-it-all smart a** that's not really actually very smart, and at least two people that are waiting for the Republican Party to save emerika. I really don't want to provoke all of them into a debate, but rather provoke their thought processes about their concepts of liberty.

justinc.1089
02-15-2011, 01:12 AM
I think it's important that you make both the moral case for libertarianism, as well as the utilitarian case for libertarianism, without sounding like a cold capitalist or a naive hippie. That way, you'll appeal to both idealists and realists/pragmatists. Like the Judge, you should probably say that we get our rights from our humanity (as opposed to from God, as that may turn off some people). It might be wise to focus on making your audience understand the law of unintended consequences, in regards to both economics and foreign policy. If people start to understand how coercive intervention always generates negative long-term consequences and blowback, they're far more likely to come around to libertarianism.

Good advice!

I usually do try to explain my points two different ways. I usually explain my point logically first, followed by explaining it with an appeal to people's morality and emotions.

In a debate, I actually start off by immediately claiming the moral high ground because generally that ensures you will win a debate if you follow up claiming the moral high ground with logical reasoning to support that claim. I find they work better in opposite orders for some reason for me. In a presentation or speech, I go with logic first, and then emotion and morality, but in a debate I think it works better to make a moral argument first before a logical argument for some reason.

I've also noticed its very difficult for most people to debate against an emotional and moral argument because you can dumb down those kinds of points so much, and then actually explain in more detail logically next. Its like you have the audience on your side once you say your concept is "right," so the other side has a hard time simply claiming they're "right," and then when you come back with logical proof as to why your concept is "right," the audience is convinced you really are correct, and no matter what the other side says they typically can't find a way to get the audience to listen to them.

ConstitutionalRepublic
02-15-2011, 01:19 AM
I'm really interested in reading Liberty Defined.

The concept of liberty needs to be clarified. We hear so many politicians say they support it, but in reality they don't even think you have self ownership of your body.

I came across an article (cant find it) that talked about how you have a sphere of liberty around you and that once you encroach on someone else's sphere, that's where your liberty stops. Freedom is actually a bad concept if it implies no consequence.

It's the golden rule that is summed up in every single religion. I think some of the morality that many miss from religion can be taught with the concept of liberty. The NAP is just another three word name for it.

+1

I agree with everything here, though I haven't read Liberty Defined. We agree more than you think. ;)

JoshLowry
02-15-2011, 01:22 AM
+1

I agree with everything here, though I haven't read Liberty Defined. We agree more than you think. ;)

I never thought we disagreed on much. Just some minor issues on blueprints.

justinc.1089
02-15-2011, 01:23 AM
I would speak about money.

I would try and get the audience to learn how money first came to be, how paper money came to be, what is inflation/deflation and how they are being robbed on a daily basis. Then I'd switch to the central bank and how money comes into existence and how this is the single reason why everything sucks atm.


I think it's the single most important issue.


For a topic a bit more specific than liberty, money is an excellent one that's not too politicized. I could talk about that without causing people to think about political matters, and it could potentially carry with them until they hear a politician like Ron Paul talk about it.

I'm probably going to go with focusing my speech on either money, liberty, or maybe something like libertarianism or the non-agression principle.

hotbrownsauce
02-15-2011, 01:46 AM
Money (anything about money) I agree with hazek.

It is the biggest motivator in elections. Most destructive and productive force. It has broad influence. And everyone is interested in money so those listening to you rant and rave will be much more likely to actually listen. From that, should it be needed, you could extend money to any and everything.

Gaius1981
02-15-2011, 01:55 AM
If you ever find yourself in a debate with someone who argues for more government intervention and regulation, you should take a cue from Sarah Micheller Gellar's superior form of argumentation. She focuses on the morality of the issue; that it's wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFD53F1v9R4

AtomiC
02-15-2011, 02:02 AM
If you ever find yourself in a debate with someone who argues for more government intervention and regulation, you should take a cue from Sarah Micheller Gellar's superior form of argumentation. She focuses on the morality of the issue; that it's wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFD53F1v9R4

Wow I never thought of it this way. This is an amazing idea because most people do NOT think with logic sadly, but with EMOTION!

Props X infinity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

justinc.1089
02-15-2011, 03:11 AM
Wow I never thought of it this way. This is an amazing idea because most people do NOT think with logic sadly, but with EMOTION!

Props X infinity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That's what me and at least one other poster were trying to say. I can personally say from experience that this tactic works very effectively in debates.

Not only do most people in your audience see you as right once you say the other side is wrong, but the people you're debating have an extremely hard time thinking of how to refute you saying they're just plain wrong because its such a stupid argument.

My guess is they never realize after you make an argument like that, that the audience actually just began to side with you and against them.

I would suggest saying "morally wrong" actually. You need to make it seem a bit more complex than just saying something's wrong, while actually pretty much just saying its wrong lol.

After you have done that effectively however, follow up with a logical argument for the few people in your audience that do think logically, so that they too will realize you're right. Following up with a logical argument will also put your opponents in a harder situation to explain themselves out of; they will have to take back the moral high ground (nearly impossible) AND also explain the errors in your logical reasoning.

AlexMerced
02-15-2011, 06:14 AM
I would make a speech about the Subsidization of Risk, basically by how government guarantees create a culture of regulation and crisis and how's it's not any particular policy but the view that risk can be subsidized and the consequences controled and it's this idea that has undermined our country standard of living and our economy.

Or I'd make a speech about the fear should not be that in the future our standard of living will drop so much but grow slower than the rest of the world, cause as Innovation continues around the world which it will, we will be just struggling keep up with inflation to buy the same food and goods we buy now. Our ability to adopt new technology will drop relative to those who've embraced a hands off approach and we'll be worse off for it.

hazek
02-15-2011, 07:32 AM
For a topic a bit more specific than liberty, money is an excellent one that's not too politicized. I could talk about that without causing people to think about political matters, and it could potentially carry with them until they hear a politician like Ron Paul talk about it.

I'm probably going to go with focusing my speech on either money, liberty, or maybe something like libertarianism or the non-agression principle.

I strongly suggest you go with money because, let's face it, who doesn't use it, whos life isn't defined by it? Everyone in the audience will be able to relate and if you can show them who the real enemy is, the real cause of their problems I'm sure they'll sooner or later discover the message of liberty.

And remember if we ever get rid of the fiat money and the FED, EVERYTHING else will get solved on it's own.

LibForestPaul
02-16-2011, 09:10 PM
Social good, violence, and monopoly of force ... good luck though ... took me a while to see the mina-a's side.

This is probably the single most important issue for a citizen to understand. It reveals government, why it is evil, the state, its necessity (or not), force, power, money...and all that jive.

trey4sports
02-16-2011, 09:29 PM
Time to scale down the Empire and become a Republic once more