'The Lesser of Two Evils in Voting' Persuasive

Josh Craddock delivers his 2009 National Championship semifinal persuasive speech on "voting for the lesser of two evils." This speech also took first place at the Rocky Mountain Classic qualifier and the Gold Standard Regional Invitational.

Here's what the critics are saying...

"Gave Me Goosebumps! ... I had never looked at this topic like this." - J. K. from WA

"Eek. I'm so sorry I voted for McCain. Your speech was the best I've heard on the subject of the lesser of two evils." - T. N. in TX

"Now that is persuasive." - J. H. from CA

"I'm convinced." - D. B. in CO

"Everything you said went straight to the heart..." - N. E. from CO

"Please publish this somewhere before the next election!" - R. S. from CO

"AWESOME! When you announced your topic, I decided I'd give you a fair hearing but didn't expect you to change my mind. You certainly did which is by definition persuasive." - K. S. in SC

"I didn't get it. Not persuasive. Maybe choose a different topic?" - A. N. in SC

"A near flawless performance...A unique fresh perspective on the Christian's duty - more people need to hear this!" - B. L. from KS

Category:

Education

Tags:

• speech
• persuasive
• lesser evil
• lesser of two evils
• McCain
• Obama
• abortion
• stem cell
• homeschool
• finalist
• winner
• josh craddock
• josh
• craddock
• right to life
• personhood
• NCFCA
• forensics
• communication
• Christian
• politics
• political strategy
• third
• party
• third party voting
• third party
• voting

[CoCosweetieR]

As far as your actual speaking goes this was a terrific speech!

you nailed the point of a persuasive speech and I was entertained through out the entire speech!

[CrashCradLaJunta]

Great speech! I recommend it often. It is very persuasive as most people who hear your evidence agree and are so thankful to hear the truth.

[lehcarhael]

What is "God's will?" Who is the "Godly" Candidate? the "will of God" is also a relative standard depending on who's God your talking about and what "Holy Book" your using as a reference.

[BenjaminWirtz]

The reason so many do not vote on principal is because they think the person is not electable or will split the vote. However if all the people who are saying that would actually vote on principal they may be surprised. The only reason the compromise candidates win is because people are convinced thay are the only option.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda No, that's not true. I think states have the obligation to overrule the federal precedent on legalized abortion. I also think the federal govt has the right to overrule states if they choose to keep abortion legal. No level of govt has the authority to legalize murder.

I tire of your false accusations against me and orgs like ARTL (which you falsely claimed I worked for). If you think Prolife Profiles is lying, prove it. I challenge you to show any of the claims they make false.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda I think states and federal govt are subservient to God's authority, not man's, and therefore every and all levels of govt have the right and obligation to defend innocent life. States don't have the right to decide whether to keep abortion legal (like Ron Paul thinks), but they do have the right to make it illegal, which is why I support state efforts to ban abortion as well as federal ones. NRLC supports the failed strategy you're referring to and doesn't support personhood.

[ayebretwalda]

Respond to this video...For you and your org you would rather have the continued national murder of the unborn, than give individual states the right to overall the national precedent on abortion. You sir, are pro-choice. How are you not?

[ayebretwalda]

You and your twits don't even understand the role of federal goverment - you're a statist. Paul wants to fix things, on the other hand:

YOU want to ban a certain kind of abortion (which has yet to pass after decades). Paul wants to federally mandate that life begins at conception (making abortion murder).

YOU think states rights are subservient to federal authority - which maintains the the status quo by promoting a 30+yr failed resolution.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda Which of these claims is false?

1. Ron Paul denies that abortion violates the US Constitution.

2. Ron Paul opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children.

3. Ron Paul claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children.

Please provide a specific response to each item.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda I don't work for ARTL, but I am a member because they are the only national Right to Life organization in the country that doesn't support the killing of some unborn children. I welcome you to back up your claims and prove that any information that is documented with hundreds of footnotes on Prolife Profiles is inaccurate. Otherwise, you're the one slinging false accusations. :)

[ayebretwalda]

@mrconceeded you had nothing to do with posting the ron paul profile on that site? I find that hard to believe since you work for American Right to Life. $100...lol - this, a an offer from an org that supports abortion by disseminating false information about abortion's most powerful opponents.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda It's not my website, but if they're lies, feel free to point out a factual error and you can win $100 from the makers of the website. I'm not surprised he spoke at the NRLC convention, since they've been bought by the Republican party for years and have no real interest in ending abortion as an issue. Check out: ProlifeProfiles[dot]com/nrlc