Fortunately the debate began with the most interesting topic, Libya. Both candidates sit beside a table and proudly appeal to character by wearing a pin of the American flag. Even though both men know how to argue, Obama seems more confident since Romney stutters, seeming weak. He definitely manages rhetoric because, after all, he has the hardest position to defend. In the debate he argued most convincingly. First, he appealed to character by stating that in his "job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe." The issue is demonstrative, showing the topic is related to values. Then he said that America must stand with democracy, appealing to ethos once more.
Then Romney, with a more softhearted tone, uses pathos when talking about the "4 people are dead in Libya," and how "[America's] hearts and thoughts go to them." He used present tense, thus the issue is related to values. Romney successfully changes to present tense in an attempt to convince the audience they they don't want another Irak or Afghanistan, convincing them that is their choice. Lastly, before changing to another topic, Romney says that what happens in Syria and Irak is unimaginable and they want a world of peace. Way to argue appealing to emotion.
Both candidates mostly appealed to values by using present tense, but since Obama is more relevant for the American people in terms of character, he used most ethos and forensic rhetoric. On the other hand Romney bases most of his arguments on the future where nothing can be held against him. Both candidates used rhetoric to suit their intentions in the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment