Michael Hatch - My Pilgrimage - Speech

My Pilgrimage

Name	Michael Hatch
Title of project	Pilgrimage Though Speech -- Creating A Debate
Overview:	My pilgrimage proposal relates to my speech and the fact that, growing up (and continuing to today), I had issues with my speech that influenced, in a significant way, my personality and who I am as a person. While I struggled accepting that my speech was different and was ridiculed by others because of my speech, I have come to not only accept but to embrace my speech and believe that it is an important part of my identity and what makes me “special.” My pilgrimage story started out at my birth when I was born with a condition called plagiocephaly torticollis, also known as the flat head syndrome. To treat this condition, I had to wear a helmet on my head, pretty much 24/7, for the first year of my life. This subsequently resulted in me not properly hearing certain sounds during that critical period of development and, in turn, not being able to properly articulate the “th” and “r” sounds when I spoke. Due to this condition I was always afraid to speak out in public. As a focus of my pilgrimage I plan to create a mock debate using great diction and research points I plan to present a speech to the class.
Readings:	Charlie Chaplin: The Great Dictator Speech MLK: I Have A Dream Speech --Both of these two speeches I have found influential and use great diction in order to convey the point they are trying to make to the reader
What you saw: film/links:	The King’s Speech -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/ --And after watching the movie and being moved by it since it relates to similar to me I wrote a reflection on my feelings towards the movie and how that will motivate me to continue on in my speech pilgrimage
Experiences:	I have listened to all the political debates this past year, and even if they weren't beneficial to our country and nation, I did listen to the diction both candidates used. I also attended the LA Galaxy press-conference announcing their head coach, and there the Owner did a 20 minute speech about the history of the LA Galaxy -- http://www.lagalaxy.com/post/2016/12/13/la-galaxy-name-curt-onalfo-head-coach
What you will make:	I have already created all the speeches and researched all the points I need to make with this specific topic, all of this is in a word document and I wish to read one of the speeches to the class and work on my diction more than the points being made.
*Reflection:	See below -- three labrinth reflections along with any other reflections about my personal pilgrimage
*Blog:	Besides having all my other reflections and all the links of the videos and sources I have used throughout my pilgrimage I also wanna add all the writings and work I have did in creating this mock-debate. This will entail all the proposition and opposition charts as well as the two speeches I have wrote and created.
Presentation plan:	My plan is to find a time to show to the class all the writing work that I have done and be able to almost present a “brief” like handout to them, and be able to follow along as I read on of the proposition or opposition side speeches.

Proposition v. Opposition Arguments

Topic: “The US should engage in geo-engineering to address climate change.”

Proposition:

Point 1: Pursuing geo-engineered solutions to climate change will make people and governments around the world less willing to take actions and agree to reduce harmful emissions, which remains the most effective, and perhaps only realistic only way to combat climate change and save the planet.

—“Most governments have been reluctant to force the radical changes necessary to reduce” the harmful emissions that cause climate change. “Merely knowing that geo-engineering exists as an option may take the pressure off governments to implement the policies needed to cut emissions.” Victor, Morgan, Apt, Steinbruner, and Ricke article. The reduction of harmful emissions must remain our focus and the pursuit of geo-engineered solutions is likely to detract from that focus.

—In addition, it is far better to focus our efforts and resources on “climate-science research and carbon-abatement technologies” instead of possible geo-engineered solutions. Especially in light of the importance and time-sensitive nature of the problem, there are not enough resources or scholars to pursue both effectively. Victor, Morgan, Apt, Steinbruner, and Ricke article.

Point 2: None of the potential geo-engineering solutions that are being considered and researched are without significant uncertainty and risk; indeed, all of them likely involve potential side effects, known or unknown, that could be as bad or worse than climate change, the problem  they are intended to address.  

—“Despite years of speculation and vague talk, peer-reviewed research on geoengineering is remarkably scare.” Victor, Morgan, Apt, Steinbruner, and Ricke article. As a result, no one knows if it will really work if it is deployed, or what its known or unknown side-effects and collateral consequences might be.   

—For example, geo-engineered solutions “would also affect atmospheric, circulation, rainfall, and other aspects of the hydrologic cycle. . . . Such changes could increase the risk of major droughts in some regions and have a major impact on agriculture and the supply of freshwater.” Victor, Morgan, Apt, Steinbruner, and Ricke article.  

Point 3: Pursuit of geo-engineering solutions by the US would raise serious “social, ethical, legal, and political issues” that would likely cause severe “geopolitical unrest” and conflict, including potentially military conflict between the US and its allies and other countries (Phrases in quotations are from the Preston article, see below).

—If the world has not been able to agree on whether and how to reduce emissions, how can it expect to agree on whether and how to use geo-engineering as a way to address climate change, especially when (as explained in item 2 above) some countries will potentially benefit from geo-engineered solutions while others will likely experience severe adverse consequences? Thus, it is likely that if the US unilaterally pursues geo-engineered solutions, the existing world order will be disrupted and armed conflict could result.

—The other countries around the world, both allies and enemies, will believe that geo-political solutions taken by the US will be designed to protect the US and its people and that they will be harmful to their country and their people. Thus, at a minimum, the US’s standing in the world will be further eroded and, it is entirely possible that other countries would take strong actions against the US, including sanctions and potentially even military action, to prevent it from unilaterally implementing a geo-engineered solution (along the lines that the US or Israel will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon).

Opposition:

Point 1: Geoengineering is not proven to work or be safe — On the basis of — there is very little research done on geoengineering and because of this we should find a different solution.

—Study published last year in Science showing that increasingly intense summer storms over the United States—triggered by climate warming—are injecting more water vapor into the stratosphere. That, he says, could speed the ozone-destroying reactions: “If nature is adding increased water vapor to the stratosphere and we’re adding sulfates, it is a very lethal cocktail for ozone loss.”

—The author of this so-called geoengineering scheme, David Keith, doesn’t want to implement it anytime soon, if ever. Much more research is needed to determine whether injecting sulfur into the stratosphere would have dangerous consequences such as disrupting precipitation patterns or further eating away the ozone layer that protects us from damaging ultraviolet radiation.

Point 2: Symbolic action and blocks other plane — On the basis of — People will assume that geoengineering will fix the environment and they will continue to pollute and that could nullify any potential gains that geoengineering presents or it could exacerbate the problem.

—“Most governments have been reluctant to force the radical changes necessary to reduce” the harmful emissions that cause climate change. “Merely knowing that geoengineering exists as an option may take the pressure off governments to implement the policies needed to cut emissions.” Victor, Morgan, Apt, Steinbruner, and Ricke article. The reduction of harmful emissions must  remain our focus and the pursuit of geo-engineered solutions is likely to detract from that focus.

—If geoengineering is perceived as a “silver bullet” that offers the illusion of consequence-free carbon pollution, then there’s no incentive to control emissions that are the root cause of the problem. Even if geoengineering could be made to work safely, we would have to continuously ramp it up to keep pace with accelerating emissions – and that’s not sustainable. NASA

Point 3: Once you start geoengineering you can’t stop — since — once we start using it, we’ll need to continue indefinitely. Since it only offsets warming, once the process stops, temperature changes caused by greenhouse gases will manifest themselves suddenly and dramatically. “If you stop—or if you have to stop—then you’re toast,” he says. Even using it as a temporary Band-Aid doesn’t make sense, he argues: “Once you get to the point in terms of climate changes that you feel you have to use it, then you have to use [SRM] forever.” He believes that this makes the idea a “complete nonstarter.”

—Once the world starts geoengineering, we can't really ever stop — especially if everyone keeps pumping carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere at the same time. Why? Because as soon as we quit spraying those reflective particles into the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up very, very, very rapidly. And sudden climate change is even worse than the kind we already know about

—David Appell points to a recent study in the Journal of Geophysical Research that highlights this point vividly. The authors first used 11 climate models to forecast what would happen if the world used solar geoengineering to offset a 1 percent annual rise in global carbon-dioxide emissions. The good news: Global temperatures stay pretty stable. But then they stopped the geoengineering. And that was catastrophic: Global temperatures spiked very sharply: Once they stopped the solar geoengineering in the models, global temperatures rose by 1.5 degrees Celsius within a decade, and over 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in two decades.

—Why is that so bad? It's worth noting that the speed of climate change matters almost as much as the total temperature swings. Plenty of climate policy experts think a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures between now and the end of the century would prove tricky to adapt to. But a 2-degree rise in the span of just a few decades would be even harder. Many species would have difficulty moving to suitable climates. Farmers would struggle to adapt crops to the heat. Building seawalls to fend off rising oceans is much harder when you have less time to build.

Sources: (in proper form and alphabetical)

BBC article       

Foreign Affairs article

Heyward article

Preston article

The King’s Speech — How it relates to me?

The King’s Speech, is a movie that tells the story of the man who became King George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth II. After his brother abdicates, George ('Bertie') reluctantly assumes the throne. Plagued by a dreaded stammer and considered unfit to be king, Bertie engages the help of an unorthodox speech therapist named Lionel Logue. Though Logue practices he is able to overcome his challenges and become fluid and confident in public speaking. I myself can relate greatly through King George VI, and how his determination even in the face of some set backs enabled him to pursue and strive for greatness. Watching this film was the first step in my pilgrimage and the movie helped motivate me to do a mock-debate to show that I like King George VI can overcome my speech impediment and intern be someone that people look up too and listen too.

Speeches:

Proposition:

Since the beginning of industrialization there has been a problem that has plagued mankind. A problem of climate change, and how us as citizens of the United States are at fault for Earth's rapidly increasing temperatures. One way we can combat this problem is through geo-engineering. The dictionary’s definition of geo-engineering is “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth's climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.” When it is stated like that any one with the right sense and brain can see that geo-engineering is beneficial and should be implemented not just in the United States but throughout the world. My first point is that pursuing geo-engineered solutions to climate change will make people and governments around the world less willing to take actions and agree to reduce harmful emissions, which remains the most effective, and perhaps only realistic only way to combat climate change and save the planet. That “Most governments have been reluctant to force the radical changes necessary to reduce” the harmful emissions that cause climate change. “Merely knowing that geo-engineering exists as an option may take the pressure off governments to implement the policies needed to cut emissions.”  a direct quote from the Foreign Affairs article. The reduction of harmful emissions must remain our focus and the pursuit of geo-engineered solutions is likely to detract from that focus. In addition, it is far better to focus our efforts and resources on “climate-science research and carbon-abatement technologies” instead of possible geo-engineered solutions. Especially in light of the importance and time-sensitive nature of the problem, there are not enough resources or scholars to pursue both effectively, cited by BBC Article. My second point is that none of the potential geo-engineering solutions that are being considered and researched are without significant uncertainty and risk; indeed, all of them likely involve potential side effects, known or unknown, that could be as bad or worse than climate change, the problem  they are intended to address. That, “Despite years of speculation and vague talk, peer-reviewed research on geoengineering is remarkably scarce.” a direct quote from the BBC article. As a result, no one knows if it will really work if it is deployed, or what its known or unknown side-effects and collateral consequences might be.  For example, geo-engineered solutions “would also affect atmospheric, circulation, rainfall, and other aspects of the hydrologic cycle. . . . Such changes could increase the risk of major droughts in some regions and have a major impact on agriculture and the supply of fresh water.” a direct quote from the Foreign Affairs article.  My third and final point is that the pursuit of geo-engineering solutions by the US would raise serious “social, ethical, legal, and political issues” that would likely cause severe “geopolitical unrest” and conflict, including potentially military conflict between the US and its allies and other countries. If the world has not been able to agree on whether and how to reduce emissions, how can it expect to agree on whether and how to use geo-engineering as a way to address climate change, especially when some countries will potentially benefit from geo-engineered solutions while others will likely experience severe adverse consequences? Thus, it is likely that if the US unilaterally pursues geo-engineered solutions, the existing world order will be disrupted and armed conflict could result. The other countries around the world, both allies and enemies, will believe that geo-political solutions taken by the US will be designed to protect the US and its people and that they will be harmful to their country and their people. Thus, at a minimum, the US’s standing in the world will be further eroded and, it is entirely possible that other countries would take strong actions against the US, including sanctions and potentially even military action, to prevent it from unilaterally implementing a geo-engineered solution (along the lines that the US or Israel will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon). It is through this points, that I ask you to consider the beneficial impact that geo-engineering will have on this country. That by its failsafe method and its easy implementation geo-engineering can and should be adapted as soon as possible before it is too late to endure the horrific faith of what will happen to planet Earth.

Side Argument — Closing Statement (100 words)

What the opposition side has told you is a lie. It is people who do not want to trust science and in turn believe that geoengineering is a doomsday device created by the government. Geoengineering is not this ultimate fail safe and enables all over problems to just magically vanish, geoengineering actually is a way to combat climate change head on instead of small minuscule details. In my final remarks I just want to say a world where the US does not engage in geoengineering is a world that I do not wish or want to be apart of.

Opposition:

Geoengineering is a risk to society and is a risk to the United States. That is why it should not be pursued and in turn should be expelled. There is not enough research to show that it will affect climate change, and we also do not know if it will do more than good. That is why I am here to show and prove the opposition side is the correct side when it comes to the United States engaging in geoengineering. My first point is geoengineering is not proven to work or be safe — On the basis of — there is very little research done on geoengineering and because of this we should find a different solution. Study published last year in Science showing that increasingly intense summer storms over the United States—triggered by climate warming—are injecting more water vapor into the stratosphere. That, he says, could speed the ozone-destroying reactions: “If nature is adding increased water vapor to the stratosphere and we’re adding sulfates, it is a very lethal cocktail for ozone loss.” The author of this so-called geoengineering scheme, David Keith, doesn’t want to implement it anytime soon, if ever. Much more research is needed to determine whether injecting sulfur into the stratosphere would have dangerous consequences such as disrupting precipitation patterns or further eating away the ozone layer that protects us from damaging ultraviolet radiation. The second point is symbolic action and blocks other plane — On the basis of — People will assume that geoengineering will fix the environment and they will continue to pollute and that could nullify any potential gains that geoengineering presents or it could exacerbate the problem. That “Most governments have been reluctant to force the radical changes necessary to reduce” the harmful emissions that cause climate change. “Merely knowing that geoengineering exists as an option may take the pressure off governments to implement the policies needed to cut emissions.” a direct quote from Heyward article. The reduction of harmful emissions must  remain our focus and the pursuit of geo-engineered solutions is likely to detract from that focus. If geoengineering is perceived as a “silver bullet” that offers the illusion of consequence-free carbon pollution, then there’s no incentive to control emissions that are the root cause of the problem. Even if geoengineering could be made to work safely, we would have to continuously ramp it up to keep pace with accelerating emissions – and that’s not sustainable. NASA. My final point is once you start geoengineering you can’t stop — since — once we start using it, we’ll need to continue indefinitely. Since it only offsets warming, once the process stops, temperature changes caused by greenhouse gases will manifest themselves suddenly and dramatically. “If you stop—or if you have to stop—then you’re toast,” he says. Even using it as a temporary Band-Aid doesn’t make sense, he argues: “Once you get to the point in terms of climate changes that you feel you have to use it, then you have to use [SRM] forever.” He believes that this makes the idea a “complete non starter.” Once the world starts geoengineering, we can't really ever stop — especially if everyone keeps pumping carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere at the same time. Why? Because as soon as we quit spraying those reflective particles into the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up very, very, very rapidly. And sudden climate change is even worse than the kind we already know about David Appell points to a recent study in the Journal of Geophysical Research that highlights this point vividly. The authors first used 11 climate models to forecast what would happen if the world used solar geoengineering to offset a 1 percent annual rise in global carbon-dioxide emissions. The good news: Global temperatures stay pretty stable. But then they stopped the geoengineering. And that was catastrophic: Global temperatures spiked very sharply: Once they stopped the solar geoengineering in the models, global temperatures rose by 1.5 degrees Celsius within a decade, and over 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in two decades. Why is that so bad? It's worth noting that the speed of climate change matters almost as much as the total temperature swings. Plenty of climate policy experts think a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures between now and the end of the century would prove tricky to adapt to. But a 2-degree rise in the span of just a few decades would be even harder. Many species would have difficulty moving to suitable climates. Farmers would struggle to adapt crops to the heat. Building seawalls to fend off rising oceans is much harder when you have less time to build. It is through this I believe that we should not endorse geoengineering because it is not proven to work, and it could have huge repercussions that will just expedite the demise of the world.

Side Argument — Closing Statement (100 words)

Within the proposition and the opposition arguments there are two contradictory statements. Whether there is enough research being done towards geoengineering. We believe that the evidence we showed in our point three should validate and over turn the proposition argument by means of benefiting the United States. We also believe there should be and is no comparison between geoengineering and developing nuclear weapons, it is just a side argument to show its popularity even if its popularity could have an awful impact on our climate. The US should not engage in geoengineering and keep the Earth the way it is.

Michael Hatch

Pilgrimage, Hume

Labyrinth Project Question #1

“Perhaps one day tired of circling the world I'll return to Argentina and settle in the Andean l

Lakes if not indefinitely then at least for a pause while I shift from one understanding of the world to another.” (pg 28)

On an unusual cloudy day in sunny Los Angeles, we, the pilgrimage class began a journey designed to truly embrace Che’s weariness of “circling the world.” This statement speaks truth to me both literally and figuratively, literally in the sense that our mission for today was to create twelve concentric circles in the middle of Arden Lawn, something much easier said than done. The word “tired” was also very relevant to our effort as it took us a fair amount of time and effort to perfect our craft, and like any pilgrimage there were bumps in the road that we had to overcome. The bumps included a material malfunction as well as a fair amount of disagreement among us with regard to the best way to build the labyrinth. By talking it through and working together, we were able to sort it out which helped bring about “understanding of the world to another,” which, in turn, allowed us to become closer by understanding the way we worked and acted together and resulted in us working together as an effective and efficient unit. As a result, we were able to complete the twelve circles with insane speed, which gave us a chance to “pause while [we] shift from” laying the string out for the circles to thinking about the next actions that needed to be taken and ways to improve or enhance the labyrinth such as by curving the edges of the turns. I was amazed by all of the good ideas generated as well as by how we all listened to one another in a way where efficiency and perfectionist combined in a perfect blend. I also experienced a great sense passion in connection with our endeavor. I realized the joys of being with my friends, doing something meaningful together, and the camaraderie we experienced. It brought to mind the type of pilgrimages undertaken by comrades together in arms, just like that undertaken by Che and Alberto. Another emotion I experienced was how, during the course of a pilgrimage, it is okay to make mistakes because if enough people put their minds into a resolution a resolution will be made apparent. This was illustrated by the situation we encountered where we used green paint and white paint to fix blemishes in the labyrinth. To me, this quotation speaks directly to the labyrinth and its use of circles, as well as to discovering who we are through this journey. I am truly able to see how Che’s, The Motorcycle Diaries, embraces the project and how as a senior, as I walk the labyrinth I realize that I will soon have to shift from an child to an adult.

Michael Hatch

Pilgrimage, Hume

Labyrinth Project Question #2

“And Siddhartha said quietly, as if he was talking to himself: ‘What is meditation? What is leaving one’s body? What is fasting? What is holding one’s breath? It is fleeing from the self, it is a short escape of the agony of being a self, it is a short numbing of the senses against the pain and the pointlessness of life.’” (pg 15) -- Siddhartha

           It feels like we hit a speed bump as our class is now confined indoors due to this thing called “rain,” something approaching apocalyptic for most Angelenos. Like Siddhartha, I am now am forced to “quietly” sit here in classroom 403 and listen to the typing all around me, with my peers experiencing the same pain and regret as I am experiencing. We all want to go outside and begin painting in the labyrinth again. As the rain passes overhead, I am left thinking, “what's next?” This question is why I picked this quote from Siddhartha. I believe that is reveals Siddhartha’s character, and demonstrates how he constantly asked questions in order to determine who he is and who he wants to become. I hope that these questions will be answered soon when the clouds break and the sun shines, but for now I am only left to ponder questions like, “Will we have enough paint?” or “What if the paint is too washed out by the rain?” I hope that we will be able to finish this labyrinth so we can feel the satisfaction of our labor and hard work as well as answer the questions that Siddhartha has posed in this quote. I want to discover what meditation is as well as understand the effects of a peaceful walk around an interconnected maze. I hope that our discovery will discredit the point Siddhartha made about the “pointlessness” of life and will, instead, help to realize its inner beauty. Here on Arden Lawn in Pasadena, our class has an opportunity to experience a state of inner peace and a state of discovering who we are. It is insane that something that with a little spray paint we can create a vehicle for our pilgrimage and create something that will provide enlightenment and pleasure to everyone at Poly and whoever visits the school and walks the labyrinth. Like Siddhartha, or for that matter, [Samanas] like Che traveling over the Andes, as a class right now, while we are all experiencing a setback in journey, we have the determination to complete and finish our pilgrimage and achieve our goals.

Michael Hatch

Pilgrimage, Hume

Labyrinth Project Question #3

           Besides realizing that rain in Los Angeles (while desperately needed) always raises a number of interesting challenges, our experience this past week has opened my eyes, and has allowed me to realize the inner beauty that can be found in everything here in Pasadena and wherever I am. The experience today opened my world to a new religion and a new style of living and, even though I might not agree with some aspects of the religion and life style, I am so appreciate of the opportunity to expand my knowledge and life experiences. All of the discovery about the labyrinth has enabled me to pursue my own pilgrimage. Through this experience, I have learned the importance of determination as well as taking things slow and doing whatever is necessary to identify and overcome obstacles. With regards to my own pilgrimage, I realize that while I am now confident with my speaking abilities, that wasn’t always the case and that I had to overcome not only my speech impediments but also a lack of self-confidence caused by the way others reacted to my rather distinctive speech. I hope that I was able to demonstrate that in the debate. What was most meaningful to me was that each student was able to pick their own project, presumably something that they were passionate about and that was extremely meaningful to them, and not simply assigned a mundane project that has no special meaning. As I go forward from here, I am very confident in my ability to speak and I wish to carry this on to college where I will apply this in both my classes and by trying to pursue leadership roles in the activities in which I get involved. This pilgrimage has also made me potentially receptive to a career in public service or even as an elected official; I was inspired by President Obama’s farewell address to the country and am, frankly, very concerned about the direction the country seems to be taking of recent. One of the quotations that I will take away from this project is, “the labyrinth is a metaphor to life, if you walk off the path, it is the same as missing some parts of your life.” But the quotation that will stick with me the most is the one by the great actor Charlie Chaplin in his speech in The Great Dictator, “Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!” This describes and symbolizes the pilgrimage that I intend to pursue going forward especially now that I have found my voice and realize the importance of speaking up for whatever I believe in.

Mandala Reflection

It is crazy how a simple circle can have such an impact on one's mind and tell so many truths about people's personalities. That in Boswell art studio I was able to explore my own identity and in-turn look around and see all my peers trying to create a piece that express themselves and who they are. It was incredible all the creative juices flowing and how each design I looked at was different and each enabled me to see a major connection between the artist and the artist masterpiece. How creating a mandala can be as simple as drawing lines and circles to as complex as a realistic piece depicting something important in one's life. A mandala can also be as micro and as macro as one wants it to be and it is all about choice. I believe the mandala enables one to show certain "choices" and how these choices enable one to be relaxed and in turn find enlightenment. In my mandala, I showed simple circles with watercolor. How those curves show the peacefulness behind a smooth line, not a line that is jagged or sharp. The watercolor showed a sense of light, even though I messed up with my shading, and also I used the wrong paper, I internally realized it is not the perfection that counts, it is instead how you feel when you stare at it and all other opinions does not matters. I like to think that a mandala is a gateway to one's heart, and made me validate what Mr. Bielvedt had to say when he stated a mandala should be, “the center of one's human body.” I can see why throughout history the mandala has been used. That in churches it was used in labyrinths, and how in the buddhist religions they are painted in the temples, or even in renaissance-art a circular halo is depicted among figures showing their inner peace. This unit has helped me so much, and that reading Siddhartha has set me on my quest for enlightenment and creating a mandala was a good start in the right direction.

Reflection #1

My pilgrimage proposal relates to my speech and the fact that, growing up (and continuing to today), I had issues with my speech that influenced, in a significant way, my personality and who I am as a person. While I struggled accepting that my speech was different and was ridiculed by others because of my speech, I have come to not only accept but to embrace my speech and believe that it is an important part of my identity and what makes me “special.” My pilgrimage story started out at my birth when I was born with a condition called plagiocephaly torticollis, also known as the flat head syndrome. To treat this condition, I had to wear a helmet on my head, pretty much 24/7, for the first year of my life. This subsequently resulted in me not properly hearing certain sounds during that critical period of development and, in turn, not being able to properly articulate the “th” and “r” sounds when I spoke. When I sat down to discuss my pilgrimage proposal with Ms. Hume, we both decided that my interest in debate and public speaking should be the focus of my pilgrimage. I have throughout my time at Poly participated in some debate practices and even gone to and participated in a couple of tournaments. As I started off on my pilgrimage to pursue debate, I encountered and early road block; there are no competitions coming up in the next few months. To overcome that obstacle, I realized that I could use a prompt/topic from a prior debate tournament and ask some fellow members of the debate team to do a mock debate with me. I plan to film this whole ordeal of the debate and present it to the class. I am also working on proposition and opposition charts as we speak and creating points that I will be able to argue throughout my speech. By enabling myself to debate and speak in public I will be able to practice my speech and in turn be able to grow as a person. I pursue debate and public speaking because I want to be fully confident in my abilities to succeed by the time I leave Poly. By enduring this pilgrimage of debate I feel fully confident that I will be able to achieve this goal. The prompt I selected is, “The US should engage in geo-engineering to address climate change.” I am very excited to debate this topic as well because it is an important and current topic of worldwide importance (even if our President-Elect doesn’t believe in climate change). As I pursue this endeavor, I am confident my speech and pronunciation will further improve, as well as my love for debate.

Reflection #2

Today in class I was able to complete both the proposition and opposition sides of my argument. I was able to finalize my proposition argument and complete all the opposition argument, even though the opposition side needs one more read through to make sure it is a strong-sided case. I was able to practice some of my speech by reading the proposition argument out loud and recording myself to make sure I sound very smooth and well composed as I talk. The next step in this process is find a date and time where I, as well as some of my friends who are also on the debate team can meet up and record this mock debate. I plan to practice 5 minutes every-night before this debate to make sure I sound ready and do not make any mistakes through my speech impediment. I look forward to what my pilgrimage has next in store and can’t wait to be able to practice my speech through this very interesting debate topic.