Man In The Arena Speech

E.E. Schattschneider believes conflict is contagious in everything, especially in politics. The audience and the people in the conflict are the two key components to every disagreement he explains on page two. He says that we can already tell the outcome of the fight merely based on how the crowd is involved. Word for word he says, “The outcome of all conflict is determined by the scope of its contagion.” This means, the end result of the issue all depends on how far the issue at hand spreads. Schattschneider said, “If a fight starts, watch the crowd, because the crowd plays the decisive role.” Basically, if you want to be heard in politics, then you best make yourself known. You must talk about controversial topics such as universal ideas in the culture, ideas concerning equality, equal protection of laws, justice, liberty, the first amendment rights and civil rights.

The 2016 Presidential Election is approaching quickly, and as is customary a number of highly controversial issues have taken center stage and each side argues their position with oftentimes charged rhetoric. Using the rhetorical strategies discussed in class (ethos, pathos, and logos) in varying degrees and combinations both Democrats and Republicans appeal to their base and attempt to reach out to those who are on the fence. Oftentimes, whether a presentation or piece of controversial writing is political or apolitical a sizable majority of the readership will begin reading with preconceived notions. Those who take a hardline stance against the writer's position typically will never be convinced to adopt it. However, a large minority of readers

This is a time where pages have the chance to debate and vote on bills. Each page was had the opportunity to present a bill before fellow pages. I co-sponsored a bill with another page. The bill we presented was HB . This bill was about banning the use of handheld communication devices while operating a motorized vehicle. While our bill didn’t pass, it was great opportunity to debate the bill we presented. Fellow pages questioned our bill. Questions such as “Would AppleWatches be considered as a part of this?” or “How would the officer have the authority to pull you over for it, as it can be hard to know for certain an individual is using their device?”. These were all questions we had prepared for and expected questioning from fellow peers. Moreover, other page bills were also presented bills during this session. Having the opportunity to prepare and question their bills led to questioning on the floor and occasionally surprising votes. Often times if questioning had been high on a particular bill, it would raise more debate when closing debate was presented. Along with going through the process of passing a bill it was sobering to be a part of an experience that is every day of for those we elect into office. Our elected officials sit at those same desks and debate over hard topics, topics that will affect those all around

Have we become a world that has forgotten how to listen and debate? Why are people so quick to argue? Everyone wants to prove their point these days. In “The Argument Culture,” Deborah Tannen discusses how today’s society no longer honors the noble American tradition of debate. She explains how we no longer want to take the time to listen to both sides and definitely not all sides of an issue. We have become a society that would rather fight and argue, often to the point of violence.

* But at the end of the fight the students would always get into trouble and usually so would the people who basically egged it on.

Bruce Dawe is an Australian poet. Bruce was born in Fitzroy, Melbourne, 1930. At the age of 16 he dropped out of Northcote High School without completing his leaving certificate. Bruce was the only one of his siblings to attend secondary school. Dawe drifted between careers in his early life, working as a labourer for 10 years, before serving in the RAAF from 1959-68. After leaving the air force, Dawe taught as a Uni lecturer for 24 years. Bruce is now married with 4 children, and has collected a plethora of awards including; The Order of Australia, Ampol arts awards for creative literature, The Patrick white award and the Myer poetry prize (twice).

Throughout high school, I harbored a deep admiration for debate and dreamed of joining the team. Its quintessence of ideals in rational argument, tolerance for conflicting points of view, and rigorous self-examination appealed strongly to me. Yet simple things, like pronouncing a word wrong or having an accent, were enough to hold me back. Thus, I passed through my high school years unnoticed.

The history of American conservatism reveals the diversity of the ideologies and values that comprise the modern public philosophy. This history also reveals the fragility of the conservative coalition. Conservatives agree primarily on the concepts that they oppose, rather than on principles that they share. Professor James Ceaser argues that “much of the unity that exists among conservatives stems from their shared antipathy to liberalism. It serves as the common heart that beats in the breast of the conservative movement’s diverse and often fractious components.” Ceaser provides a useful analogy for the conservative movement. The “common heart” of conservatism is an antagonism towards liberalism that supplies the blood to the movement’s four heads: Traditionalism, Classical Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, and the Religious Right. Caesar asserts that, in politics, there is no shame “to relying in the adhesive nature supplied by a common

Global debates are dominated by controversial political figures that use charged arguments to debate the most controversial issues on the political agenda. The authors argue that success in politics is not about being right or well-reasoned. Instead, it is asserted that success in politics is the ability to imprint positive associations in the long-term memories of voters. More so, success in politics is may be the ability to craft regular, credible, and persuasive arguments that resonate with those of one’s

Jordan was forcefully optimistic that social change is possible, and this optimism set the tone for her speech. It remains a speech that is strikingly relevant to the political problems confronting us today. We are all aware that partisan gridlock and dysfunction define the day-to-day political process in today’s Washington. Cynicism and lack of confidence in government are at record levels. Liberals might blame a Republican Party that seems doggedly unwilling to work with President Obama on a host of issues; conservatives might blame the President and other Democrats for pursuing a liberal policy agenda with which they can find no area for compromise. This ideological stalemate seems to have no end in sight, and it feeds a widespread cynicism about the political process itself.

Alan Brinkley compares three political leader from the 1933 election. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Huey Long, and Father Coughlin in “Voices of Protest.” Discussing what these men did, why they were implementing the causes they did, and how the election turned out explains not only each man’s political stance, but also the political stance of the country as well. Comparing and contrasting political leaders grants United States citizens their right to choose who they want to represent themselves and their country. This holds true in 2016, just as it did in 1933, during the election that Franklin D. Roosevelt became president after overcoming his two main opponents, Huey Long and Father Coughlin.

In his State of the Union Address for 2016, Barack Obama uses logical and ethical arguments to emphasize shared ground rather than partisan disputes. He also taps into the audience’s desire to feel better about themselves and their country. By using humor and irony, Obama paints his opponents into corners, out of which it would require outrageous extremism to effectively squirm away. At its best, this approach demonstrates how much Americans actually have in common in a culture dominated by ideologically polarized cable-news channels, Facebook, and cultural tribes that increasingly live and socialize apart from one another. The president's technique throughout the speech is to frame issues through a rhetorical jujitsu to persuade his opponents,

Many times when we hear from someone who has been on both (or more) sides of an issue their message has a little more meaning than usual solely because they can provide more insight from the other side. During his presentation Mr. Pearce said that ‘we need to learn to argue and not quarrel. That arguing with others gives us the opportunity to learn more about the other person(s),’ (Pearce). Mr. Pearce’s message was very applicable to the world that we live in today because we are becoming divided and less understanding of others and their beliefs. Not everyone is going to have the same values and beliefs and we need to learn to accept that as well as hear them out as to why they hold those beliefs and accept their reasons even if we believe them to be

Innumerable issues have led to the current political climate here and around the world. The only behavior we can control, however, is our own. Communication and education are key to advancing the progressive movement. Together, we can learn to do better. In fact, we must. The future depends on it.

"You don 't get the chance to make America great by getting rid of everything that made America great,” Stated by Hillary Clinton during her campaign rally in St. Louis, Missouri to attack candidate Donald Trump from his previous diverse rhetoric. Political Rhetoric has been very popular in today’s society. Politics use this as a platform to criticize other candidates about important points that are essential to the United States and its citizens. Not only does others believe that political rhetoric is out of control but it is a negative form of art. During election time, the media and the internet are critical for candidates because it gives them easy access to the younger audience. Although social media is enormous in today’s society, this is the best way for young voters to make their voices heard. Scott Keeter a research analyst and exit poll analyst for NBS News stated that “Young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party’s most supportive age group” (Keeter, 1). According to U.S. Census Bureau over the course of time the rate of younger voters “Dropped from 50.9% percent in 1964 to 38.0 percent in 2012” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2).However, the media continue to evolve with modern society. I believe that rhetoric such as visual political rhetoric helps the youth to get more involved with the political arguments while being educated and entertained at the same time.