"Presidential Debate" Analysis

 Throughout history we have repeatedly encountered a grand variety of patterns that are used in order of persuading individuals, there is a combination of corporal language frontal and vertical perspectives concerning the camera angles and perhaps objectivity, however taking all of these into consideration subjectivity plays by far the most prominent role when it comes to shifting an individuals point of view or and their belief system. Subjectivity is used repeatedly both within the social media and presidential debates since it persuades emotional responses, which in turn disables an audience from thinking analytically. However in the first Presidential debate we come across various strategies used by both candidates such as hand, facial gestures, tones, wording, ethos, pathos, logos and the use of wedge issues in order of creating an illusion of empathy or appeal. In the following paragraphs I will be addressing in depth with examples how each candidate used such strategies and furthermore explaining my opinion concerning their ideas, counter attacks, corporal language and all other subjects used on most of the segments.

Moreover, as the presidential debate starts we encounter Romney’s prominent use of ethos in order of appealing the audience’s emotions, he begins by illustrating a experience he encountered while campaigning, he speaks of a woman having a baby and a husband without a job thus, creating an emotional and psychological relationship between us and this individual, not only does he constantly use fragments of similar experiences of others throughout the entire debate but he finishes each segment by implementing a phrase such as “I can help ” or “for America”  I will restore the vitality of America” again using this idea of “freedom” in order of portraying his “ideology” which in fact contradicts most of the evidence he gives. Conversely when asked how Obama can create jobs, Obama clearly identifies the issues by explaining techniques that would close loopholes and deductions, by defining what are small businesses  by addressing how there should be no tax cuts for corporate businesses. On the other hand we have Romney implementing another experience of a small business man he met in St Louis once again using ethos but no factual evidence, he then once again uses terms such as “They are suffering in this country” conveying sympathy towards small businesses and people in general.

            Furthermore. It was quite stressing observing how Romney would repeatedly disrespect the time limit there was, and subjectively attacking Obama’s facts and ideas, not only would he criticize but he would use similar experiences of random citizens, however this strategy of his makes him seem more credible and empathetic towards the audience. One example that clearly depicts is in segment 5 when Obama speaks of the balanced approach that is needed concerning corporate taxes and economic relief, explaining how there should be no tax breaks for companies that ship over seas furthermore, questioning the audience if we believe EXXON mobile should have tax breaks when we know that the corporate oil industry receives 4 billion in corporate welfare.  Once this was said Romney refuted his idea by solemnly saying he had never heard of such thing, in other words inferring that such evidence is not true.

In my opinion Obama successfully identifies where specific change is needed in order of relieving the economy.

            Speaking of the federal regulation I believe is quite logical that there should be a plenty of more regulations. However Romney used great wording in order stating his belief of excessive regulations and overall did not infer a direct statement clearly depicting his position on such matter. Moreover, something that really bothered me was Romney’s constant use of the term “moral”. In the federal debt segment he begins by saying that the federal debt is no other but a “moral “issue he states “ it is not only an economical issue, it is not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we are taking in” in other words he believes that this is more than just economical but moral and yet he wants tax breaks on high profit corporate industries?

            In conclusion as the presidential debate comes to an end Romney once again uses religion while explaining the role of the government. The republican candidate states the following “ the role of the government is to promote life, to protect lives and liberty” the responsibility of protecting the life of the citizen, thus, does not believe in cutting military expenses. In my opinion this is quite contradictory since on one side he advocates for liberty and “life” and yet believes that the military is a great way of retaining liberty and life.  Overall although Romney spoke much more than Obama, portrayed a great posture, used hand gestures in order of appealing the audience, and used a high pitch tone of voice Obama seemed much more truthful humble and based his ideologies in facts and logic rather than using religion or solemnly basing his ideas through random experiences.