This is the first time I watch a presidential debate. You could say I am not really that into politics but this debate was watched on a more rhetorical quest. Get it? Over the past few lessons we have been discussing topics that revolve around rhetoric, the art of persuasion. What better way to play "Find the Rhetoric" than with the last presidential debate?
Throughout the whole debate the easiest things to identify was pathos. Every time there was an uplifting moment of "America is…" it is to raise a sentiment of nationalism among the American people. Any talk of peace was a way to uplift the viewer and playing with their emotions. While discussing the question about U.S polices in Syria, Romney made a clear use of pathos when he mentioned the refugees and the dead offering condolences. Then when discussing if an attack on Israel would be considered an attack to the U.S, Romney mentions obamas alleged apology tour but Obama has got some pathos in his back pocket. He rebuttals by saying that when he was just a candidate and went to Israel, he visited the Holocaust museum and was showed where missiles landed close to children's bedrooms. Needles to say, pathos was present in all the discussions in the debate in one way or another.
The debate had lots of talks of the future. Lots of verbs in future tense were used to illustrate what each person would do if elected president. This is where lots of the future plans were discussed and where the choices were discussed. Basically anything involving the future used a deliberative way of speaking so it was not that hard to pick up. It was also no surprise that the forensic way of speaking was also evident. Whenever the candidates got candid with each other and accusatory, forensic was there. An example of this (among many) was in the first question when Obama accused Romney of inconsistencies in things he had said or pointing out things he had said. Romney also accused Obama of making countries in the Middle East think that America is not that strong when he went on an apology tour, making negative comments about America.
Logos is not that hard to miss. Every time a candidate stated any sort of facts or explanations about what was going on, they were using logic to explain it in their advantage. Figures were not used as much but when discussing testing in Massachusetts Romney gives fact about how 4th graders and 8th graders performed. Obama wasn't far behind. He presented facts about his administration and when discussing the deficit. It was not just about presenting these facts. By combining logos with forensic, a key point could be made against the opponents. Whenever any logos of figures was used it was usually followed by accusation.
The only two rhetorical topics that were a little harder to spot for me were ethos and demonstrative. Demonstrative, I assumed was mostly when there was talks about what was being done and any sort of inclination toward values. When the words "We are" were used I assumed there was a demonstrative verb involved in what followed these words. This was pretty challenging but Obama showed more of this since he could actually talk about the present and say what was being done. Ethos was also pretty challenging but I found one or two examples. When the character was put into question, ethos showed through. Obama pointed out Romney's strategies and decisions, and while it could also be forensic, it was an attack on the person Romney is. Whenever an accusation was made towards the reputation of the other was made, ethos was part of the debate.
All in all, the debate was really interesting and clearly showed what it is like to control an audience and peoples opinions. The rhetoric used in this debate can make someone want to vote for one person or make someone completely hate that person. Oh politics...
No comments:
Post a Comment