Hillary Clinton Speech Pros And Cons

To Prove a Political Point

Entering into the realm of politics, you’ll find yourself in a mist of hope, deceit, encouragement, and strategic plots set forth by nominees, all with the objective to lock in your vote. Such tactics do not just entail friendly and fair competition; why we witness name of an opponent being tarnished, solely as a stepping stool for the other’s progression. In the wake of the recent, on-going 2016 Presidential Election, we will highlight the use of some informal fallacies delivered in the conventional speeches delivered by America’s two candidates: Hillary Clinton in representation for the democrats and Republican Donald Trump.

One of the most frequent defects to appear within both candidates’ speeches is the use of Ad

Hominem; the attack on their opponent’s character rather than on the argument they bring forth. Trump introduces us to this fault with the mention that, “[Hillary’s] bad instincts and her bad judgement—something pointed out by Bernie Sanders—is what caused so many of the disasters unfolding today.” Donald gives no surrounding reasoning, nor evidence, to support this claim, leaving us to believe this statement is opinion-based, rather than factual. He even goes on to include the former Democratic nominee, Bernie Sanders, as an agreeing party in attempt to shed light on the idea that the political party in which Hillary resides in doesn’t support her previous actions. Clinton, herself, wasted no time to tag along with the attacking the man rather than his motive with saying, “Donald wants to divide us—from the rest of the world, and from each other…he wants us to fear the future and fear each other.” While to the ears of an audience, this prove enough to side in the Democratic favor at the polls, no factual foundation was established in the construction of these statements.
Next to demeaning the opposing’s character, we see usage of appealing to force, alongside fear.

Both candidates attempt to instill fear into the voting population in order to create the illusion of better chance at safety and security being under their guidance. Following his mention of the current dangers and catastrophes in the world, Trump concludes with, “This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction, terrorism, and weakness. But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy.” Clinton also utilized fear within her deliverance stating, “That sales pitch [Donald’s] making to be your president? Put your faith in him—and you’ll win big? That’s the same sales pitch he made to all those small businesses. Then Trump walked away, and left working people holding the bag.” When comparing these two statements, we can take notice to the same fallacy being used in each, only they target different areas of worry. On one side of the playing field, voters are led to believe their safety will be endangered if Hillary Clinton is elected Commander-in-Chief, while the on-lookers in the Democratic convention are fed that the economy will end in distraught if Donald Trump is the overseer of national

finances.
Finally, the appeal to pity has made its rounds in several political addresses. This route not only serves as a time to receive sympathy, but it also gives politicians a chance to relate and seem human to the crowd. “My Dad, Fred Trump,” Donald starts, “was the smartest and hardest working man I ever knew. I wonder sometimes what he’d say if he were here to see me tonight. It’s because of him that I learned, from my youngest age, to respect the dignity of work and the dignity of working people…but now, my sole and exclusive mission is to go to work for our country—to go work for you…I’m asking for your support tonight so I can be your champion in the white house.” By shedding positive light on his family life, he is selling the idea that he is a loving family man. He follows these memories with a direct reminder to offer your support for his campaign, which is a clear indication that this was move to pull heart strings. Hillary chose to reflect on her encounters meeting with suffering members of the community, such as Anastasia Somoza, whom she refers to in the following quote, “I remember meeting a young girl in a wheelchair on the small back porch of her house. She told me how badly she wanted to go to school—it just didn’t seem possible…so we gathered fact. We built a coalition. And our work helped convince Congress to ensure access to education for all students with disabilities…with your help, I will carry all of your voices and stories with me to the White House.” This statement is used to registry both sympathy and hope from all listeners alike, which can equal a heavier lead on voters.
In closing, the use of informal fallacies, while incorrect, have the ability to sway an audience into accepting your dilemma and stance. As we have witnessed from comparing the speeches of both the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, these defaulted techniques of speech can stem from the same root, yet differ in translation. In order to deliver the most accredited speech, one must stray from antipathetic opinions, and release solely factual-based conclusions. This makes for a stronger argument, as well as an audience more trustworthy, due to being left without deceit.