Throughout yesterday's televised debate, my initial goal was to pinpoint which candidate was utilizing a logos form of argumentation and which was using a pathos form of argumentation. Both began with gratious thanks offered to Bellmont University and immediately sprung into what seemed to be their pathos methods of debate (or "what appeared as pathos skills" in E-Prime, which proves to offer a better understanding in this presented context). McCain almost directly established a warrant with the audience stating, "That's a tough question" in response to the first volunteered question. By doing so, he portrayed himself as an average American man, struggling through the same complications as the rest of the population. Similarily, Obama's response to that same topic involved his expression of sympathy for the American responsible for two jobs. After all, he, having a family, would understand the importance of a parents spending time with their children. (On a very random note, maybe a lack of time shared between parents and child keeps the economy running due to the outlay of guilt money to the youth. Just a thought...)
Moving on...
I found it rather contradictory that both Obama and McCain made their best efforts to appeal to the middle class by acting as if they were, themselves, members of that social class. On the contrary, however, both candidates stated at least once that their plans (especially the tax reductions) were aimed at assisting people in the audience rather than the privileged politicians of Washington such as Obama and McCain.
In the last minutes of the debate, Obama recounted his abject past (his mother's battle with cancer and his poverty-stricken experience with food stamps). This impelled the audience to look behind his well-ironed suit and silk tie. McCain called upon memories of his military career, stating that his lifetime has always been dedicated to valuing the safety of his country above his own. This established the American people as his close comrades. Thus, both seem to have experimented with the pathos.
I must say, however, that McCain seemed to be speaking at higher levels of abstraction than was Obama. Would that not lead to Obama's debate as falling under the category of the logos? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Was the Palin vs. Biden debate so defined by the differentiating pathos and logos because of Palin's gender? Were Obama and McCain able to incorporate both because of their imposed masculinity? Again, I'd appreciate your explanations for I am truly curious.
Thank you! :)
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hmm... very interesting points Sam. In this response I'll focus on the Pathos/Logos aspect of your post.
I'm not so sure that higher abstraction necessarliy means that a speaker is using the pathos. The inverse works in much the same way, lower abstraction doesn't necessarily mean logos. Just because one is appealing to the emotional segment of his/her constituency does not mean that he/she is in some way being more general. Both pathos and logos forms can be approached on the same level of abstraction, it just depends on who the speaker is, and what they're trying to get across.
(taylor)
"Was the Palin vs. Biden debate so defined by the differentiating pathos and logos because of Palin's gender? (Sam)
In my opinion, both Biden and Palin used both logos and pathos (not to mention ethos) in their arguments. It did appear that Palin relied upon pathos much more, but I feel that is not because of her gender, but simply because Palin knows that she cannot compete with Biden in the logos department. To rephrase, Palin is not using pathos so extensively because she is a woman. She is using pathos because it clashes effectively with a logos type argument, and she knows that Biden's years of experience threaten to overwhelm her in logos. The logical approach for Palin to confront a debater like Biden is to use pathos.
(Eric Wei)
I'd just like to say that even though there certainly were strong overtones of logos and pathos in Biden and Palin's speeches, respectively, they weren't bound to those types of argumentation. Just as Eric says, she probably realizes that she cannot compete with Biden on the factual front. I would also like to entertain the idea that they are predominantly focusing on utilizing the methods that will play upon their strengths. Palin's forte lies not in the factual realm but in her appeal to middle class America (Whether or not you yourself actually believe this to be true..)
Regarding the contradictory nature of Obama and McCain's appeal to the middle class, I think that they are relying upon the idea that people listening to the debates will see them ambassadors of sorts - the quintessential representatives in an ideal democracy. They need to play two images: one of sophistication and one that the audience can relate to. Just as Mr. Laz said, we all know that we don't actually want someone exactly like us in power.. Yet we still want them to be like us to the point where they can empathize with us (And thus represent our interests and concerns).
Post a Comment