Rhetorical Analysis of the Debate The ability to apply logos, ethos, and pathos in an effective way in the presidential debate proves a presidential candidate’s ability to persuade the audience that he/she is qualified for being the leader of the country. Throughout the final debate, the rhetorical victory should go to Hillary Clinton because she was more persuasive than Donald Trump to use strong evidence to clearly answer Chris Wallace’s questions, establish a qualified character by using credible sources and an appropriate tone, and present vivid examples to appeal to the values and beliefs of the audiences who have the same stance on deportation, women’s rights, and gun control. Clinton’s logic was clearer than Trump. When answering each of questions, Clinton always started with her answers, followed by specific explanations. Each of her answers is provided in a succinct, clear, and straightforward manner. When discussing the Second Amendment, Clinton started her statement by proving her position that “I support the Second Amendment.” Then, she developed her argument by using strong …show more content…
Clinton was well connected herself to the topic being discussed. When talking about the past experience, Clinton compared her impressive experience and her contribution with Trump’s by using concrete evidence. Also, in order to make all the audience understand her speech, she applied a very clear tone and used easy-to-understand dictions. However, Trump was struggling with truthfulness by making some exaggerated statements. For example, he said “The problem is you talk, but you don't get anything done, Hillary,” “, many millions of people that I represent,” and “President Obama has deported millions and millions of people.” These not proved statements significantly decreased Trump’s
In his “State of the Union” speech, President Barack Obama effectively uses the rhetorical devices of Ethos, Pathos and Logos to convey a more convincing message to the citizens of the United States to urge them to follow the example of the many people that have made their nation greater.
The opening of Clintons speech effectively captures the audience’s attention; Clinton begins her speech with;
Ann Richards’s keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1988 was extremely interesting to watch. I believe her speech was intended to be focused on the American family and also the American farmers. These two areas seemed to be very important to Mrs. Richards and she made a point to discuss both.
Politics is dirty and competitive and has not changed between 1879 and 2018. It is a complex system of jargon, charm, facts, and lies. Mark Twain’s “The Presidential Candidate” satirically expresses the essence of both old-world and modern politics as a presidential candidate who blatantly tells the truth of his wrongdoings. As a politician, one must be an open book. Their life must be truthfully written on the pages for the readers to analyze and evaluate their credibility as leaders. “The Presidential Candidate” resonates both in 1879 and 2018 with his use of humor, use of diction and use of subtlety.
Have you ever wondered how influential people write great speeches that grab people's attention? They use a literary device called, rhetorical appeals. As supported in Hillary Clinton’s November 03, 2016 speech, uniting the American Public, will lead to an advantageous country. In her speech for the Democratic National Convention it states that, as elected for president, she will get everyone saying “We” instead of “I”. To reach out to the American Citizens and grab their attention, Clinton uses many rhetorical devices as she speaks. Using Logos, Pathos, and Ethos, the people of America jump on board with Clinton's ideas.
Though Kennedy and Clinton addressed their audiences nearly thirty-two years apart, each rhetor faced a common rhetorical barrier – an American populace too heavily focused on the personalities within each respective presidential election rather than the true issues confronting the United States. To overcome that barrier, both Kennedy and Clinton utilize definitional strategies – in the form of association – as well as language strategies –specifically, historical allusions. Whether or not the speeches directly correlate with both candidates winning their presidential elections does not concern the examination; this paper observes how exactly the rhetorical devices used served to dissolve the barriers between the rhetor and the intended audience.
President Obama’s Address to the nation was presented on January 5, 2016. His speech was shown on all of the major network stations. The main goal of his speech was to get the point across to the nation about the increasing problem of gun use. His speech really focused on the issue of gun control and if it would benefit the country. Overall, the biggest idea of his Address was that gun control is a large issue in the United States. The way to prevent deaths caused by firearms can be prevented in other ways than taking peoples guns away. The examples brought up in this Address really stood out to me. The use of personal, national, and global examples really made his speech stronger on the topic of effectiveness.
Before stepping into the critical analysis of the speech, it is important to understand the historical setting from which the speech arose. The context can be briefly summarized as the following. In 1995 Clinton had a sexual relationship with one of his White House interns by the name of Monica Lewinsky. On January 17, 1998, a sexual misconduct lawsuit against him was filed. Clinton then quickly delivered a forceful public statement that he did not have a sexual relationship with the woman. However, unknown to President Clinton, Linda Tripp, one of Lewinsky’s associates, had recorded several conversations of Lewinsky describing her affair with the President. In the seven months afterwards, Kenneth W. Starr, the StarWhitewater independent counsel, had began collecting evidence of the affair and carrying out investigation about Clinton’s obstruction of justice. Evidence of Clinton lying under oath would be grounds for impeachment. On August 17, 1998, Clinton decided to a...
Clinton repeats the words “If women” followed by “will” (Clinton), this gives the audience a reason to accept her propositions. Good outcomes come with good actions. When she concluded her speech, Hillary kept using the repetition of the words dignity, respect, family and children. Clinton’s credibility is not questioned when she says she has been working in the case, “Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families” (Clinton) this is the way she knows about women and their necessities, “I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my country and around the world” (Clinton).Her goal is definite, “To strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies”( Clinton). This change will not only affect women, but everyone who surrounds them.
Instead of being hostile or rude, she simply points out which qualifications are needed in a president and low-key stresses that Trump does not have these exact qualities. This is used as evidence as to why Hillary Clinton is the favorable candidate. All of this is explained very softly, which is a big contrast to Donald Trump’s speeches where he speaks in a very aggressive manner. Michelle Obama uses words like “love”, “hope”, “dreams” and “joy”, which gives the whole speech a very warm and fulfilling atmosphere. This thought-through choosing of words continues throughout the whole speech, where she uses an anaphor: “how we urge them to […]. How we insist [..]. How we explain […]” (p. 1, l. 20-23) and twists Donald Trump’s words to justify her own cause: “don’t let anyone ever tell you that this country isn’t great, that somehow we need to make it great again. Because this, right now, is the greatest country on earth” (p. 3, l. 106-107) and imagery “putting those cracks in that highest and hardest glass ceiling” (p. 3, l. 95). These rhetorical effects give the speech impact. An anaphor emphasizes whatever point the speaker has while also adding flow and rhythm to the speech, while an imagery enables the audience to visualize and adds depth and life to the language. Twisting Trump’s words to her own gain is a clever move by Michelle Obama, as this
Many would argue that President Obama is one of the most effective speakers in the decade. With his amazing speeches, he captivates his audience with his emotion and official tone.
“The beauty of me is that I am very rich” according to Donald Trump. His ignorance has lead him to do things that he shouldn’t being doing or has done. In the past few months he has been racist man that would insult people that are from a different race. When Trump started running for president he would insult and bully everybody in general not knowing the people’s stories. He made people seem like they are poor and have nothing to live for, Trump’s inability to see past his greed. He wants to separate the United States and wants people to think he is the best of the best; Trump should not be President.
The goal of Hillary’s speech is to persuade her audience that her ideas are valid, by using ethos, pathos, and logos. Hillary is the First Lady and Senator, she shows credibility as an influential activist for woman rights. “Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families. Over the past two and a half years, I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my country and around the world” (Clinton 2).
During his campaign, rumors and lawsuits regarding sexual affairs began to make Americans question his character, but Clinton was able to get the rumors under control and obtain his nickname “The Comeback Kid” (Kunhardt, Kunhardt, & Kunhardt, 1999, p. 430-433). He won the presidential election in 1993 by a large amount and was the first president of the baby boomer era. Clinton had tremendous potential in office, but issues about his personal life kept reappearing in cases such as Jones v. Clinton. According to Daniel Cohen (2000), these issues did not stop him from winning his second term election by an even bigger margin than his first (p.10). Though, in 1998, the Lewinsky scandal broke, a scandal that changed how Americans thought and talked about their political leaders forever. Most Americans believe this scandal was the sole cause of Clinton’s impeachment; however it might have been his corrupt moral compass that ultimately led to his removal from
Bush’s method of topic by topic argument along with many emotional appeals was a rather effective way of winning the audience’s support. By appealing to the emotions of the audience Bush was able to give the audience issues they could relate to as well as issues they would feel strongly about. With an emotionally involved audience Bush was able to gather a great number of supporters of his party, just as he intended in his original purpose. The further reference to the character of the people involved in the issues really paid off by drawing the crowd closer to the people working for them. With the topical structure and the appeals used, the speech was a very effective tool in gaining support for the Republican Party from the northern Arizonan audience.