After viewing the circus acts that were called the 1st presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate that aired earlier in the month, my expectations for the 2nd debate were not too high. Unfortunately my even my low expectations were not met and I felt as though there was not a large enough improvement during this debate to have made any difference from the first one. While we saw some improvement in terms of candidate behavior, the rest of the debate was severely lacking in substance. Questions posed by the audience were shallow, then made even more so by the follow up questions from the moderators. On the topic of moderators, there appears to be a continuing theme of their lack of effectiveness that has carried throughout all of the debates including this one.
The debate I am choosing to watch is the Republican Presidential Debate, and my focus would be on examining Donald Trump’s portions. The debate of course, is about Republican candidates who are running for president (intended for the next four years) debating to the public on who is a better choice to vote for. In the broad sense, Republicans takes on conservative stand on issues. They believe the federal government shouldn’t play a big role in the citizen’s lives. Most Republican wants lower taxes in addition to less government spending on social programs such as healthcare, food Stamps and education. The portions that I am looking at would be the part where Trump talks about building a border wall and also where he speak of immigration. It
The second presidential debate demonstrates an indecisive clash between opposite personalities; the rehearsed demeanor of Hillary Clinton juxtaposes the raw audacity of Donald Trump. Despite their dissimilar appearance, the candidates employ like strategies – they deflect accusations and criticize their adversary. Clinton suffers to succeed in this format. Neither knowledge of policy nor experience in office effectively counter accusations against personal character. This observation is nonetheless irreverent. Although Trump dominates the debate format, he alienates the electorate.
In the wake of the death of Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court Justice , Republican candidates had a debate and met in South Carolina for the 9th GOP debate.This debate mainly discussed what each candidate would do if they were to become president. During these debates, the candidates are given a chance to deliver their messages , and to help voters determine which candidate will be best as president. In the republican debate, each candidate was asked a question which they was expected to answer but somehow didn't appear to do so. While watching, I came to conclusion that some of the arguments were successful and others unsuccessful. In the first section of the debate when candidates Ben Carson, Donald
The use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or “wrong moves” in the construction of an argument are a fallacy. In a fallacious argument there might a deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is (Google). The two politicians debates, I decided to analyze were democrat Pat Quinn and republican Bruce Rauner. In these debates, I will be focusing on the fallacies that are used with what each politician is arguing. In political debates, each opponent will always use prepped material to make the other side look unsatisfactory, to earn another winning vote. Politics are won by lies, promises that are never achieved, and issues that will always remain unfixed.
Even though President Obama’s speech was effective in how it was given to the public and convincing on getting the American people to join his side of the argument, his speech did contain logical fallacies that would do the opposite for the well-educated and skeptical audience members. Logical fallacies are flaws in the reasonings given by the president. While some of his audience may not have caught them, others would have. The fallacies dampened his ethos, or credibility, and made his speech less effective than planned. In the first few sentences, Obama tells the nation, “So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas...But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization,
The first logical fallacy listed, ad hominem, which in Latin means, to a man, is something that our current President has been noted as doing a lot of during his campaign for election. Whether the argument against him was logical or not he has been labeled as an aggressive counter puncher with his use of this logical fallacy. An example of this would be when he posted on Twitter “And this is the bimbo that’s asking presidential questions?” referring to then Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly. Along with the statement was a meme with photos of her where she had posed for GQ Magazine in 2010. His reason for doing this was fueled from a
Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush are running for the Presidency. The two candidates are in Presidential Debate to allow the voters to get an understanding of where they each stand on certain positions and policies. Bush and Gore have some similarities and differences on certain positions and policies discussed in the Presidential Debates.
Presidential campaigns often thrive on fallacies. Trump is a perfect example of this, but is not the only one. Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Ben Carson, etc. Marco Rubio’s campaign, in particular, relies on a overly sentimental appeals as well as combination of fallacies resulting in a scare tactic.
1. One of the main arguments of the debate was situated against inventive and the ways it presented itself in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. For example the proposition said that Clinton’s background was a good indicator of her future decisions and that inventive is based off of situated. The opposition rebuttal included the argument that situated is only a platform and the way she speaks now and the narrative that is created is more important is current predicament of the race. The also debated on party allegiance and the factors that play into that. The proposition argued that depending on your political party, you bring different situated ethos while the opposition debated that especially in this election, using examples of the split Republican
When brought up the discussion of sexually assaulting women Donald Trump used red herring to avoid the topic. Trump apologizes apathetically, "Yes, I'm very embarrassed by it, I hate it, but it's locker room talk and it's one of those things -- I will knock the hell out of Isis." (7:30-7:39). In the first place he doesn't address what "it" is that he is apologizing for, whether it is his words or actions. Furthermore, he had moved straight into the issue of Isis to redirect the crowd into new discussion: however, it didn't work because Anderson Matthews had brought back the subject. Then, Clinton uses a pattern of three to convey how she and many others felt on the subject. Clinton powerfully states, "Donald talking about women, what he thinks
Another four years another presidential debate. Before I go on to the current debates let me state a few facts about past ones. The Lincoln and Douglas debate was in important because it started Lincoln presidential career. The Debates lasted from August 21 -- October 15. There where seven of them, with two days to two weeks in between. Each debate lasted three hours; first candidate spoke for one hour; the second for one and a half hours; the first replying for a half hour. Candidates alternated going first. The topics involved where primarily slavery and the Union. Other important debates were the '48 and '57. They were the only debates before 1960; there were no presidential debates between 1960 and 1976. In
The race for the White House is a long and tedious process that is mobbed by campaigns events and stump speeches, but more importantly candidates are givens the opportunity to contrast their ideas with other candidates in televised debates. On January 17, 2016, I tuned into the Democratic Presidential Debate that was hosted by NBC News in Charleston, SC and moderated by Lester Holt. This debate included all three Presidential contenders: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley. All candidates made reference to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in their opening statements because of the King holiday being the following day. Each candidate tried their best to make an appeal to continuing the work of Dr. King by ensuring justice
The 2016 Presidential Election has brought a lot of controversy due to negative statements about not only the United States but as well as other countries specifically focusing on Mexico and the border. Both Presidential Candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have both touched on the topic about Mexico and its border. However, Donald Trump has been the one with the negative statements about Mexico, the border, and their people. I am arguing about the lack of reliability of Donald Trump's statements throughout the Presidential Election about Mexico, the border, and their people. Trump had stated that, “Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in
Logical fallacies are common in the political races in the United States, whether they’re in advertisements or in a speech given by a candidate. During the presidential election of 2012, logical fallacies seemed to be more