Debate Night

This debate, from the start, is much more interesting than the last presidential debate. Tonight, Obama and Romney are much more direct - interrupting and trying to talk over each other. I like the topic of international policies and relations much better than the others, probably because it's slightly more relevant to me but also because I know much more about it than things like tax policies. 

As they discuss the international policies, currently with Syria, both candidates speak with a lot of pathos. Especially when they were talking about the deal with Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, the way Romney said that they can't "kill their way out of it" was an extremely impactful statement. Obama also uses pathos when he talks about the "American blood on Gaddafi's hands" because that hits home with so many Americans. Also when Obama speaks about visiting sites where missiles had been fires he says he imagined himself in the place of the families of those who had been attacked, "as if those children had been [his] children."

There is also a lot of logos being used as Romney talks about what should be being done with Libya, Syria, and Egypt. Obama is also using logos in his rebuttal showing that Romney's ideas are not that different than what is already being done because what they are doing is exactly the right thing to do. Really there is heavy logos on both sides. I mean obviously, it's a debate. They have to be logical in defending their policies and ideas so people will understand them. 

Ethos comes strongly into play as well because the candidates are aware that people don't just vote for a presidential candidate, they vote for a person. Obama is sure to bring up Romney's lack of continuity in his opinions on different issues and Romney mentions Obama's inability to fulfill his promises from last election. They attack each other a lot, not even just their policies but things that they have said and then they say that what the other one said is a lie. They adress each other frequently and directly. It feels very aggressive.  


The candidates use deliberative rhetoric when comparing policies and plans for relations, such as Obama's "let the American people decide who is going to be more effective." The forensic rhetoric they use is in how they refer back to previous statements and plans if they have been effective or not or contradicted current plans. This requires accuracy and checking each other's facts from the past. The last, demonstrative rhetoric, is the most evident. Both candidates speak about their moral values and how they relate to their policies. Everything is very emotional and inspirational and pulls in their personal beliefs. 

Overall, it was a very entertaining debate. I enjoyed watching this one, even though the candidates mainly agreed on most things. It is an interesting and relevant way to examine rhetoric in the real world.