10/22/12 debate

Elisabeth Peters

10/23/12

Third Presidential Debate

            Overall, I thought this was an excellent debate. I thought both President Obama and Governor Romney were given their fair share of time and allowed a rebuttal by the mediator when the other side said something he felt was a fallacy.  Both side focused heavily on ethos. Attempting to demonstrate that they were the “best man for the job” by highlighting their successes and mitigating their losses when brought up by his opponent. The way that each side worded the same subject matter differently in an effort to give a certain spin off of the truth to favor himself, I found particularly fascination. However, I think if I had been watching the debate as a typical American citizen I would not have picked up on these rhetorical techniques. Also, although the focus of this debate was on foreign policy, both candidates swung many of their answers to incorporate different aspects of their platform that they found to be more compelling and that it seemed they wanted to drive home one more time. Obama talked about his education policies and Romney tried to segway into talk of the economy. This was a good play on both sides, because talk of foreign policy may not resonate with all Americans, but education and unemployment both hit home daily.

            In addition to building themselves up in terms of credibility, both Obama and Romney clearly went in to this ready to attack the other side- whether passive aggressively or straight aggressively. One subject that Romney brought up, was that Obama had led an “apology tour,” which Obama refuted vehemently, saying that “this has been probably the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign.” According to FactCheck, Romney was wrong in his accusation, because Obama never apologized on this tour. Obama also attacked Romney about a previous statement the governor made in regards to Russia being America’s “biggest threat,” as opposed to Al Qaeda. The President’s lack of respect and agreement towards Romney’s statement were apparent, and because I found Romney’s words to also be ridiculous, I went to the fact checker. What I found was that the President’s facts were wrong- Romney said Russia was a “foe” and did not use the word “threat” in reference to Russia. He rather said that “nuclear Iran” is our biggest threat. Although I see the logical need to refute their opponent’s claims, having mistakes like these two here just aren’t demonstrative of good, persuasive public speaking. Also, such direct attacks on each other’s policies and credibility will certainly decrease his liking to the other side, thereby forgoing any chance to persuade someone over to vote for him instead. Such direct attacks don’t seem like a good idea to me to persuade voters who are on the other side to switch, but it might be necessary to appease voters who are already on your side…and to keep them there!