Two days ago, Obama and McCain heartily greeted each other in the
When McCain started speaking, he instantly appealed emotionally to the audience by stating that Kennedy was in the hospital as a possible tactic to distract them from the previous statement spoken by Obama. Also, as the debate ensued, McCain spoke about his boundless experience as a politician and the lacking of experience from Obama. Yet when Obama spoke in the debate, the majority of his statements focused on logic. While McCain argued his point throughout each question, Obama would rebuttal with facts and data that favored himself or invalided the statement.
After watching the first debate, who was more persuasive? Was ethos a stronger argument than pathos?
Personally, I believe that Obama’s logical arguments were more effective. Although McCain strengthened his stance by tapping into the audience’s ethos and pathos, Obama’s decisive planning and calm mood allowed me to understand more clearly the issues he wants to resolve. As Obama specifically pointed out each part of his plan as president, which I agree with most of, I found it agreeable compared to McCain’s way of expressing his plan of action which I felt looked more like a hidden agenda. In most cases, I would have had a predilection towards an argument that was based on ethos and pathos, but for a presidential debate, I felt it was not exactly the place to appeal to emotions. Rather, it was important to justify and explain clearly the stances each presidential candidate held, and why the way he handle the issues would be more beneficial and effective for the country than any other.
The debate can be found on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjmiF5uoYe8
Posts
12 comments:
This debate, in my opinion was probably one of the most boring shows I've ever seen. I found it difficult to support or believe either candidate. However, I know that Obama used more emotional appeal than McCain. In fact, Obama's whole campaign has been about the image he's trying to create for himself and his speaking skills. The most surprising piece of the debate was when McCain pointed out that Obama stopped his calls for spending after he started campaigning for president. That, in my opinion, is unforgivable and just flat out abominable. For him to be accusing McCain of something he himself just stopped doing is flat out wrong and ugly. As for Obama's "plans", they are nothing but emotional appeal. Overall, most to all of them are unreasonable/unrealistic/stupid. How is he going to reduce foreign dependence on oil in 10 years when he's not even going to be president for that long? He claims he will reduce taxes for companies that keep their jobs in the US. How is he going to know which ones those are. Obama's tax cut sounds fair right? If he draws the line at $250,000, there's bound to be loopholes in the system. The same loopholes he claims he has been trying to get rid of. Finally, and the one I feel most strongly about, his health care plan. I my opinion, it is the most ridiculous/unfair thing I've ever heard. As the child of two immigrant parents who came to the US with 2 suitcases of clothing and $2,000, I think it is almost impossible for a person to be making such little money that they can't afford health care. In the United States of America, education is accessible to everyone, which means everyone has the chance to educate themselves and get a decent paying job. If people don't take education seriously, then of course they will have trouble getting a decent paying job. I don't think it's fair for educated taxpayers to pay for their expenses. Also, the health care plan also cuts pay for doctors. That is the last thing we need. It requires at least 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency to become even the most basic of doctors. If the income is barely worth the price and time of education, why would anyone want to become a doctor? The health care plan summarizes Obama's plans--sound good, yet are unreasonable and contain punishing consequences.
I do not agree with your statement that Obama based his argument on emotional appeal because his responses were often as objective as possible. However, McCain did use a lot of ethical appeal to appear more knowledgeable and experienced by often questioning Obama's experience and naïveté. Obama, on the other hand, made many logical arguments and I believe that he had a slight victory in this debate over McCain regarding substance on both the economy and foreign policy. While McCain continuously pointed out the places he had been and the leaders that he had met, I felt that his performance overall lacked substance relative to Obama’s. Although McCain and Obama both agree that excessive and unnecessary spending should be eliminated, McCain attacked Obama on his record of pork-barrel spending and Obama was able to defend himself by stating that spending on education and infrastructure are important for human development. I agreed with some policies of both candidates such as McCain’s stance on less unnecessary spending and nuclear power, and Obama’s policies for increased spending for education, but I believe that Obama was better able to get his point across. Plus, McCain’s declaration of a spending freeze is just too radical.
It seems that with respect to the appeals each candidate made they were trying to divert a little from the style they have had thoughout the campaign. I believe that obviously both candidates were using logical appeal, and McCain did use emotional appeal, but I would definately go as far to say that it was his main argument. That's not to say however that his logical appeal was very good. I was very dissappointed in McCain as a presidential candidate. He sounded like a broken record. The only thing he kept repeating was "cut spending". That definately needs to be done, but there is much more to do than that. For this reason I would give the slight edge to Obama. Although I do not personally agree with Obama's economic strategy, he presented his side better than McCain. However, when it came to foreign policy Obama had little to go on except for to point out that McCain has supported President Bush in the failed Iraq War. McCain who has traveled to the Middle East was much more knowledgable and I believe took th edge.
Obama had the upper hand in this debate. His clear use of logical appeals throughout the discussion made his arguments easy to follow and digest. From the very start of the debate, he was able to number the steps that he planned to take in order to help the country during the financial crisis. He was also able to look directly into the camera, showing that he was not only knowledgeable, but very well prepared. On the other hand, McCain's discussions were based on emotional appeals that were not expressed as clearly. For example, McCain attests that the current economic crisis was caused by corporate excesses and greed. This may satisfy some people, but it fails to account for the full effect of the crisis. Meanwhile Obama describes in clear, easily understandable terms that the situation resulted from firms that were allowed to borrow and spend more money than was wise. In response to this, McCain shrugged and stated it was obvious that the government should have regulated these transactions more. But this goes against his previous statements where he claims that he is always for less regulation.
The debate was very interesting probably because they raised issues strongly about the one of the most oppressive country, in which our Korean brothers and sisters are suffering to death everyday and even this moment. For this reason, I have tried to listen and understand their narratives clearly, and I could notice distinctive styles of each candidate even from their clothes;
McCain had a blue shirt with striped red tie which inspired young and dynamic image, but on the other hand, Obama's color match with dark-reddish jaket, white shirt, and dahlia color gave rather heavy but settled impression to me. And their different stylish clothes exactly reflected their different stratagy in the debate.
Obama tried to answer the questions with logical approach. He, for example, tended to argue with using 'first, second, third and so forth' that he seemed to try hard to be logical and succinct. Also, Obama's powerful voice and calm but sharp facial expression made me think of a man of conviction who is strong enough to withstand against any potential threat to the Americans. However, McCain responded to questions with emotional appeal with soft and calm voice. Instead of logical approach, McCain presented various experiences and precedents, which were powerful enough to convince audience to believe him as a 'veteran' politician.
It was very interesting to observe different styles of response to the same questions. But Obama's stratagy seemed to be more appropriate than McCain's in this type of debate because I believe that the president should be logical rather than emotional in order to deal with diverse and complicate problems. I don't think anyone believe that the emotional approach can solve financial crisis.
The first presidential debate of the 2008 presidential campaign, in my opinion, reflected the central focuses of both candidates campaigns up to this point. Although the debate supposedly focused on foreign policy, both candidates used it as a stage to promote the ideals associated with their candidacy. For McCain this included his experience, service to his country, his "maverick" label and his traditional republican values. In the case of Obama, this included the ideals of "change" and "hope" and a focus on his youth and exuberance.
While watching this debate it was often hard to follow the candidates responses because they constantly wavered from their stances on the issues at hand and instead focused on other characteristics and political tactics. While both candidates did talk to an extent about their views on the economic bailout and other pertinent issues, this hour and a half debate had much less substance than it should have.
I think both candidates did reasonably well, and it was not a major victory for either candidate. I would have liked Obama to be more aggressive in going after McCain, but I still think it was a small victory for Obama for two reasons. First, Obama stared directly into the camera, speaking straight to the many viewers watching, whereas McCain neglected to look into the camera, and instead focused on the audience. This may have caused the difference in the the polls asking who won the debate. Second, Obama proved in the debate that he has a good handle on foreign policy, contrary to the allegations of the McCain administration. These two factors made the debate more beneficial to Obama than McCain.
When i saw the debate i was more or less PROUD. i thought we saw candidates who were ready to face the problems affecting America. with this said both candidates offer radically different ideas but at its essence they give the american people aunique view of how America should be run. its simply (or not so simply) our job to decide which one is the best.
I agree with Nico. Obama's logical and clearly organized steps to improve the economy were easy to understand and follow than McCain's policies.
I believe that because of this, Obama was the winner of the debate.
McCain's emotional appeals were, to me, somewhat trite and ineffective. His constant undercutting of Obama made me more upset than anything to see dirty politics at work. However, McCain's debating strategy was, although I thought it was wrong, still effective. It is interesting to me that although McCain's responses were mostly emotionally based and supposed to get my emotions to feel for McCain, that it did just the opposite
One thing is clear from this first Presidential Debate of the 2008 race. That is the fact that both McCain and Obama were utilizing an array of appeals in order to secure a positive attention from the audience. Although many people will nitpick at who spoke more about the issues and who presented a more ethos based performance, I do not believe that such particularities are significant. What I do feel is important is the reasons behind why each candidate chose to utilize the appeals that they did. Why did McCain try to instill a sense of patriotic nostalgia while presenting himself under a heroic light? Why did Obama emphasize his wealth of logistical knowledge? Are the debates really for the issues when each candidate' issues are presented in detail on their campaign sites? I think that the debates are meant to be a medium in which the American people can witness such emotional and personal interaction between the two Presidential candidates. The issues thus become mere props.
It is interesting Katherine that you expected a more logical approach to the first debate than an emotional one. I found that both McCain and Obama, whether it was in their speeches, TV ads, or any other medium, attemted to appeal emotionally to the American people while exposing their character. Both candidates definitly realized that this election was going to be about more than policies, and therefore they chose to use emotional appeals in order to advance their personal narritives in the eyes of the voters.
Post a Comment