双胞胎在美国小镇的公立初中上7年级。对他们来说，大多数功课可以轻松拿A，只有一门除外：演讲课，Public Speaking。这是一门四分之一学年的副课。但老师要求严格，往往每班只有两三个学生能够得A。

昨晚，晨晨特别兴奋的说，在演讲课上，他的演讲得了最高分，90分。趁着他高兴，我多问了几句。演讲课没有教材，没有硬要求。第一节课自我介绍不打分，之后，有4次不同类项的演讲，informative speeches, 提供信息式演讲，demonstrative speeches，演示型演讲，persuasive speeches, 说服式演讲和 impromptu speeches，即兴演讲。每次演讲前，老师发演讲要求和提纲，学生自选题目，有两节课的准备和练习时间。演讲时，老师打分，提出改进建议。这门课的宗旨是，通过不断的演练，让学生克服恐惧心理，学习演讲技巧，提高在众人面前的表达能力。

说服式演讲的提纲：

I. 开头

A. 抓住听众

B. 从双方面描述问题

C. 阐述你的论点

D. 演讲的目的

II. 中间部分

A. 分论点

论据1，事实，细节

论据2，事实，细节

B. 分论点

论据1，事实，细节

论据2，事实，细节

C.

D.

E.

III. 结论

A. 总结各分论点

B. 最后陈述论点，给听众留下深刻印象

老师的打分单，分十项，每项10分。

1. 在演讲前，使用自我放松技术。10 分

2. 演讲达到3分钟。10分，晨晨用了3分10秒。

3. 演讲有很多论据。10分

4. 演讲有不同种类的论据。10分

5. 演讲者在前45秒内就阐明了他的论点。10分

6. 演讲的结构清楚，易懂。10分

7. 演讲有说服力。10分

8. 避免分散听众注意力的行为。10 分

9. 演讲口齿清楚。5分。晨晨的声音不够大，语速有点快，被扣了5分。

10. 演讲者很好使用身体和面部语言。5分。晨晨缺乏与听众的目光接触，两腿来回动，被扣了5分。

演讲课的总评成绩，不是所有演讲的平均分，而是看这个学生的进步程度。只剩下最后一个演讲，即兴演讲：学生当堂抽题目，几分钟准备，即兴演讲。晨晨对得A很有信心。

我问晨晨，怎么没看见你准备啊？是不是在被窝里偷偷默念的？他嘿嘿一笑，说不用准备。晨晨像他爸，很少愿意担当领导角色，却也不怕在众人面前说话，喜欢搞怪，逗人笑。相对来说，我担心昊昊，好在他的演讲课排在下学期。我建议，下学期，昊昊演讲前，先给有经验的晨晨演练。两人都拒绝，在我的劝说下，勉强答应。另外，我还想，如果晨晨喜欢，上高中后，可以鼓励他加入辩论队。

附晨晨的演讲稿: (他拿着一张卡片上台，记录主要内容。据他说，没有背演讲稿，偶尔需要看卡片。)

I. Intro

A. People are making a giant deal about video games. Surprisingly to most people, only 3 of 10 video games are rated M.

B. Some parents think that selling violent video games to kids should be illegal. They say it encourages violence. However, video game companies disagree, saying it counts as Freedom of Speech.

C. Personally, I believe that violent video games doesn't encourage violence in children.

D. The purpose of the speech is to persuade my classmates that violent video games does not encourage violence enough to make selling M rate games to minors illegal.

II. Body

A. Freedom of speech is violated if the sale of video games to minors is banned.

1. Freedom of speech says that any way of expressing yourself is legal. Video games should count. Banning it to minors makes it illegal.

2. All lawsuits restricting the sale of violent video games has been banned up to this point, for a good reason. The congress said that it violated the First Amendment.

B. Furthermore, evidence shows that violent video games doesn't encourage violence.

1. Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In the same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled.

2. In 2005, the US had 2,279 murders committed by teenagers(27.9 per million residents) compared to 73 in Japan(3.1 per million). Meanwhile, video game sales were $5.20 in the UR compared to $47 in Japan. This example illustrated that there is no correlation between violent behavior and playing video games.

C. The statistics of people who play video games does not determine that violent video games means violence.

1. The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games.

2. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are not violent do play violent entertainment, such as video games.

D. Video games may be reducing violence!

1. Playing violent video games can help people get rid of aggressive and angry feelings.

2. 45% of boys played video games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played because "it helps me relax". according to a 2007 study reported.

E. Even if video games creates aggression, this doesn't mean that crimes will be committed.

1. When research does show that violent video games cause more arousal and aggression, arousal and aggression doesn't amount to crime. A short-term increase in arousal and aggression does not mean a child is going to leave his or her house and commit a violent act.

2. A short-term burst of arousal and aggression may mean that the person will regret the feelings afterward and not commit a crime.

III. Conclusion

A. Banning the sale of video games to minors violates the First Amendment, and video games may not even mean violence. Most evidence says no, the ones that don't could because people with violent attitudes play video games, so people that play violent video games commit crimes. The attitude is the problem, not the video games. Also, kids may use the games to release the anger inside, instead of doing it in real life. This means that violent video games may be reducing juvenile crimes! Even if video games creates aggression, it is short term, and will not result in a crime.

B. Children are people too! Banning the sale of violent video games to minors is clearly unjust!