Before the debate began, I knew what to expect for the most part from both candidates, Donald Trump would bring his intensity and Hillary Clinton would show her political knowledge. I was very much on the side of Clinton before, during, and after the debate. Therefore, I will be slightly biased towards Donald Trump. Nevertheless, it is crucial for politicians to use persuasive techniques to enhance their speech to a wide audience, in this case the American people. Trump and Clinton differ tremendously in terms of what they believe is right for the United States. However, both candidates used persuasive techniques in the debate to try to influence the public of their legitimacy to be President of the United States. In the debate Donald Trump …show more content…
His language in the debate, like most of the time, was very simple and to the point. When speaking, he went for an “intense” (Media Literacy 342) tone of voice and word choice. He consistently used negative words such as: losing, stealing, and leaving to instill fear to the public. These simple words effectively got his message of negativity across to the public effectively. In using this intense technique, Trump presumably wanted the public to believe that he was extremely serious. For example, when he addressed terrorism, he claimed he will “...knock the hell out of ISIS” (First Presidential Debate). Trump’s simple and non “politically correct” language persuades some voters because they can relate to him. He succeeded on his part of sounding intense and aggressive. However, in my opinion his language in the debate was unprepared and somewhat uneducated compared to Clinton’s. In wanting to become president, Trump’s simple words and sentences should have been more complex. His words did not impress me and did not persuade me into believing in what he was …show more content…
For example, she used “diversion” (Media Literacy 345) after Trump questioned her experience. She countered by jabbing him about his sexist remarks about women, “...this is a man that has called women pigs, slobs, and dogs” (First Presidential Debate). This changed the subject matter previously about her credibility into a discussion about the issue of Trump’s remarks about women. This proved successful because Trump had to defend his remarks and the discussion about Clinton’s credibility ended. This was a strong technique she used because she did not have to defend herself and instead put Trump on the spot about his comments. The subject matter she spoke about helped make this technique effective because it was the first time she brought up his shaky past with
Criminals can come in many different shapes and sizes. For example, a criminal can be classified as being a murderer or a criminal could just simply have committed fraud in a business setting. There is a large diversity of criminals and it is the judge’s job to determine what is a fair punishment for a guilty verdict. Judge Ron Swanson, a federal judge for the Florida District Court of Appeal, deals with using cost-benefit analysis daily to determine what is fair for everyone involved. Before becoming a judge, Judge Swanson was a prosecutor coming out of law school in the University of Florida. As a prosecutor and a judge, Judge Swanson has always worked to bring justice for the victims, the defendant if he or she is innocent, and for the citizens
Politicians use many different ways to persuade the intended audience. The speech to the Berlin Wall, and the speech to the Virginia Convention were both similar in ways of impacting people and using the same form of persuasion, but different when it came to a sense of hope, time periods, and the reasoning. Reagan and Henry use different different modes of persuasion.
Politicians frequently receive negative publicity at the hand of their own use of language. Their uses of words as they relate to persuasion typically fall within one of the three dimensions of language functions, semantic or thematic. Often their persuasive language can be found to closely resemble any of these three categories simultaneously. There are many tools for analyzing persuasive symbols, many of which should be utilized when analyzing great communicators such as President Ronald Reagan. In response to the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion on January 28th, 1986 where seven brave American’s gave their lives. President Ronald Reagan made history with his famous speech, which didn’t only serve to address the great tragedy, but served as a focal point of comfort for the grieving nation. He commemorated the seven heroes who had fallen that morning in route to outer space; he expressed gratitude to NASA for their past developments and encouraged further explorations. Ronald Reagan was a great communicator, a charismatic persuader whose words delivered focus of the message through utilization of persuasive symbols. This paper aims not to be an all-inclusive guide for analyzing persuasive symbols, but will sufficiently guide the reader to be a more perceptive of persuasive language.
Throughout American history, important, credible individuals have given persuasive speeches on various issues to diverse audiences.
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.
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.
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
This is the essay for any person with open-minded views has been begging to write for the sake of their sanity, on the subject. This is due to the fact that incivilities in the media are always present anymore. These, are described in the book, In Your Face Politics, by Diana Mutz. She explains the problems put forth with having views yelled, ranted, and crammed into the face of the public. She, postulates the idea, that these overt opinions cause confrontation, with people that have opposing viewpoints. So with that, given the opportunity to express an opinion on a candidate with opposing viewpoints will give a person great satisfaction. Here is a chance to explain why, Mr. Donald Trump, is a fear mongering, under educated force and what that means for the American public.
This created much disbelief and shock across the grid. To summarize his entire presidential campaign in one word, it would simply be “different”. It is worth noting that Trump has taken an extreme approach against what is normally expected, and that resulted in one of the most divided political stances up to date. “David Robinson, who performed a statistical analysis of the President-elect's Twitter account in August, said Mr. Trump's tendency to tweet like an "entertainer" meant he was able to garner the “interest" of the American people, which in turn boosted his chances of election success”(Independent.co.uk 1). His appeal to emotion has personally benefited himself to the point where he remained a key subject of interest throughout the entire election. Whether or not he was favored, he was the most focused on topic for widespread
The appeal of Benjamin Franklin about the Constitution displayed uncommon styles to help get his idea into the minds of others. Benjamin Franklin thoroughly explains what the Constitution does for people and why it has faults. By combining positives and negatives, Benjamin Franklin is able to bring confusion to the reader which may sometimes allow that specific individual to conceive an entirely different opinion. From his speech, we can find numerous sentences that support his own opinion and yet we can also find sentences that explain the opposite of his appeal. Not everyone has the same mindset and I believe that Benjamin Franklin used his specific style in order to cause readers to think for themselves instead of using the opinion stated.
The purpose of a persuasive text is to change or alter the viewpoint of the reader for it to agree with the author’s perspective. The intention of this specific text is to persuade the reader to help end poverty today by joining ‘Make Poverty History’ and it uses persuasive language and techniques to do this – this essay will explain the effect on the reader and will focus on analysing persuasive language.
The United States of America is known as the nation of freedom, a place to make dreams come true, and where equal rights are followed. However, our education in history shows a different perspective. The citizens have had a complicated time convincing the mind of Congress on modifying the rights of the people. Before, women could not vote to choose the future of America, yet after many marches, the women who rose up to speak with great fervor accomplished their goal of making it possible for women to vote. The Presidential Election is a time for people to vote for the leader of the country. As I turn 18 yrs old, I have the opportunity to vote for this country’s future. What led me to the desire of voting was hearing Donald Trump’s negative
“So, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again.”
The United States presidential election are amongst us, which means people are being attentive on which politicians will benefit their future in the long run. While during research, I came across Russell Granger’s article “Why Donald Trump is So Persuasive” (Granger). Granger has a background in being an “author specializing in business development, sales, marketing, management and personal success skills” (“Russell H. Granger”). But in the article Granger’s communicating on why Donald Trump is so persuasive. I’ve analyzed that Granger’s text is directed to people who are engrossed in current political ventures, and I have also explored the content of the text and how Granger argues that Trump success comes from his aggressiveness, him being the known rebel in the political world and how he relies on emotional connection for supporters.
There have been over 42,000 gun violence incidents in the United States, resulting in nearly 11,000 deaths (Gun). For a long time the Second Amendment has been up for debate, even though it is one of the rights the Founding Fathers put in place. Back when Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson decided upon that right, guns were not as complex and powerful as they are today. With such advancements, does this amendment need to be reevaluated? When it is time for a new president to be elected, one of the first questions asked by the press is what their position is on gun control. Many people are passionate about this topic and they typically take one of two sides. They either get highly offended about the thought of the government taking away