I'm not sure if this would apply to thesis defenses, but it's at least relevant for more general presentations: make a presentation on the essentials of your research. Your research is too complicated to explain to an audience (even an expert one) if your were to talk for the whole day. Your choice is between describing a very "narrow" (and boring!) view of your work, or simplifying it!
The problem with simplifying your work is that it's not actually as simple as you'd have to pretend it to be. You will end up telling half-truths. This sounds dishonest, but I'm not sure if it truly is. I think good presenters know this. Read a pop-science book. The authors that are good at explaining a broad topic have thought very hard about which caveats to slip buy you without mention.
I find making presentations to be very difficult. But I've been getting much more excited feedback from my audience (physicists, ecologists and mathematicians, depending) when I tell them the interesting parts at the expense of rigour. They catch some of the gaps (which are there intentionally) and ask me questions afterwards, at which point I'm happy to fill in the details.
The trade-off is between rigour and relevance. Choose relevance. It's why you've done your work in the first place.