Presidential Debate Analysis
Presidential Debate Analysis
AP Language and Composition
12/15/13
During any political debate, politicians will implement certain strategies that allow them to more effectively argue specific points that they are attempting to convince the general public of. In the 2012 Presidential Debate, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney make several major claims about topics that are both controversial, yet necessary to discuss such as major economic plans and issues regarding Medicare. Throughout the debate, both Romney and Obama use eloquent and persuasive language in an attempt to appeal to the ethos, logos, and pathos of the audience, with the ultimate goal of increasing the number of votes received in the upcoming election. However, when thoroughly analyzed, the speeches of these great leaders seem to be laced with logical fallacies, making their debate, at least to an informed and logical audience, somewhat comical.
Within the first few moments of the debate, the contrasting tones and styles of both Romney and Obama became clear. Ready and willing to point out the faults in President Obama’s economic plans, the Republican candidate was engaging, full of energy and ready to launch into his detailed and extensive five-point plan aimed towards the revival of the economy. Throughout the course of the 90-minute session, Romney with the aid of his bullet points and passion delivered a well-prepared account of his stances of domestic policy including energy, healthcare, education and tax reform. In contrast, for the majority of the session, President Barack Obama seemed to be surprisingly ill-prepared and even without a clear answer or plan to combat with Romney’s concrete points. Rather than delving into his new and revolutionary ideas on how to kick-start the economy and improve the conditions of America’s workers and families, many times the President’s main rebuttal was his disagreement with the policies put forth by his opponent, yet offering little in
AP Language and Composition
12/15/13
During any political debate, politicians will implement certain strategies that allow them to more effectively argue specific points that they are attempting to convince the general public of. In the 2012 Presidential Debate, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney make several major claims about topics that are both controversial, yet necessary to discuss such as major economic plans and issues regarding Medicare. Throughout the debate, both Romney and Obama use eloquent and persuasive language in an attempt to appeal to the ethos, logos, and pathos of the audience, with the ultimate goal of increasing the number of votes received in the upcoming election. However, when thoroughly analyzed, the speeches of these great leaders seem to be laced with logical fallacies, making their debate, at least to an informed and logical audience, somewhat comical.
Within the first few moments of the debate, the contrasting tones and styles of both Romney and Obama became clear. Ready and willing to point out the faults in President Obama’s economic plans, the Republican candidate was engaging, full of energy and ready to launch into his detailed and extensive five-point plan aimed towards the revival of the economy. Throughout the course of the 90-minute session, Romney with the aid of his bullet points and passion delivered a well-prepared account of his stances of domestic policy including energy, healthcare, education and tax reform. In contrast, for the majority of the session, President Barack Obama seemed to be surprisingly ill-prepared and even without a clear answer or plan to combat with Romney’s concrete points. Rather than delving into his new and revolutionary ideas on how to kick-start the economy and improve the conditions of America’s workers and families, many times the President’s main rebuttal was his disagreement with the policies put forth by his opponent, yet offering little in