Rhetoric · & · Comp. · Journal

For my review I looked at the first Bush-Kerry Debate of the 2004 election cycle-- http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html
John Kerry received the first, question regarding whether he could better protect the country against a 9/11 type attack than President Bush, using a deliberate approach Kerry outlines his plans, including greater use of coalitions, American leadership and isolation of terrorist interests.
In response, Mr. Bush used a judicial approach, outlining the accomplishments of his presidency. Bush cited the liberation of Afghanistan, fall of Saddam Hussein from power and diarmament of Libya as accomplishments of his presidency.
In response to his next question, asking him if the country would be more at risk if Kerry were elected, Mr. Bush offers a diversion--a rhetorical fallacy--as he states that he is confident he will win the election because people know where he stands on issues. Mr. Bush continues to use the judicial form as he cites past decisions, whether people like them of not, as evidence of his conviction and clear-cut nature. The President continues his diversion as he asserts the best way to win is full confrontation--to meet the enemy on their turf rather than ours. Rebutting in the judicial form, Mr. Kerry accuses Bush of taking the the war on terror the wrong direction in attacking Iraq--citing the 9/11 commision's finding of no ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam and the apparent absence of WMDs. Mr. Kerry asserts, "This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America". Kerry accuses Bush of getting off track in the war on terror and, in doing so, putting Americans at risk. A clear example of judicial oratory in Kerry's critique of Bush is seen as he asserts, "First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections." Kerry accuses the President of failing to achieve a "true coalition of the willing". In response,the President invokes deliberate oratory as he talks of the disadvantages of not succeeding in Iraq stating, "The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free."

Mr. Kerry evokes epideictic oratory as he blames Bush for setbacks in Iraq saying, " You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need." He clearly holds the President accountable for the failures which have offset progress. Mr. Bush, to the contrary, asserts that Kerry is unfit to lead as he does not believe in the mission, using epideictic oratory Bush states, "I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis? " He questions whether someone who sees the war as a mistake can turn a war around.

In response to a question about what specifically he would do to improve the situation in Iraq, Kerry offers the following diversion, "Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of thing. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America? What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses who are the first- responders here in America." Rather than providing answers to the question, which he sets out to do ("let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of things")he instead uses the logical fallacy of diversion, diverting the attention to intiatives the President has taken in Iraq, which clearly fails to answer the intended question.

The Bush Kerry debates of the 2004 election cycle provide valuable insight into both the forms of rhetorical oratory while simultaneously providing abundant example of logical fallacies.

Michael Moore compares GM's drive for profits to a hypothetical situation in which the company instead sold crack--a more lucrative business. Moore's style draws the reader in, however to those coming from a more free-trade/capitalist perspective it can be annoying and overly-sarcastic. Moore questions why society doesn't set laws to prevent businesses from hurting its citizens, but fails to acknowledge the fact that workers willingly participate--they choose to work for the company. For me he does not pay ample attention to this fact--that it comes down to a choice each perspective employee has; if they don't approve of the company's practices they do not have to work for them. Essentially, he is arguing that we need to protect ourselves through legislation, in my ming however, any mentally competant citizen is fully capable of making the decision to work for a company or not on their own.

In Benlow's essay he assumes the worst has happened in the world--out of control polluition, warming, war etc. and is writing a formal apology to future generations. The style is somewhat effective as it does make one consider their own actions on the lives of future generations--but it also seems romaticized and overdramatic. He offers many criticisms with little advice, in short he summarized everything we are doing wrong without ever asserting any particular course of action. In doing so, I believe he falls short of being truly effective and is easily dismissed. No one wants to hear from someone pointing to problems without even suggesting solutions.

Divorce rates are at their peak, with half of all mariages ending in divorce or seperation. AS our society continues on its convenience based course institutions previously held sacred are losing their power. As Patrick F. Fagan and Robert E. Rector note in The Effects of Divorce on America, "half of the children born this year to parents who are married will see their parents divorce before they turn 18". People today are simply not commited as they once were to the institution of marriage. Study after study shows that marriages are increasingly shorter-lived and more likely result in divorce. The effects of increasing divorce on children, adult happiness and society are widespread. Children are less likely to be successful, complete school, or be happy when coming from broken homes. Adults too, are statistically less happy having endured a divorce. Finally, the costs of supporting broken families in America constitutes a tremendous toll of federal spending. Divorce rates are at an all time high and rising, representing the widespread loss of moral guidance of the past. Trends such as increasing divorce and abortion rates suggest that America truly is on the wrong path.

Our generation does not have our priorities straight. We live in an age where people value conveinence over what is right. Divorce rates are at their peak, with half of all mariages ending in divorce or seperation. Abortion kills tens of thousands every year when we have the techniques and preventitive measures in place to prevent nearly any unwanted pregnancy. Physicians today are contradicting their code of the past:do now harm, and are now enabling their patients to kill themselves rather than working to make them better. Our society is moving in the wrong direction due in large part to our convenience minded society, perpetuated through divorce, abortion and assisted suicide, we no longer value the dignity of human life, whether it be other's or our own, as we look for convienent pain-free solutions rather than searching for morally guided answers.

Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in D.C. knows why owning a car is a nuisance and not a leisure. The intersections are crowded with walking lawsuits--pedestrians ignoring crosswalks and crossing lights. The traffic is horrendous, considered some of the worst in the United States. It is no wonder that so many locals prefer the Metro for their mode of transportation. When navigated correctly the Metro can be cheap, fast and safe. However, if misused the Metro can be confusing, expensive and dangerous.

The first step when attempting to navigate the Metro is to pick up a pocket metro guide. This compact map will lay out all Metro stops as well as the different lines--color coded no less! Spend some time studying where you will be coming and going most frequently. Washington is an urban area and as such it is important to be safe. One of the best ways to do this is by looking as natural as possible in your surroundings. If you are constantly referring to your pocket guide you will be an easy mark for any would be bandits. As you look over your guide you will no doubt notice that Metro Center and Gallery Place/Chinatown are the two vital lifelines of the system. Within these two stops lays the ability to change from one line to another.

Jonathan Swift argues that the people of Ireland should, in this time of destitute sell and eat poor babies at the age of one. Clearly, for such a proposition to be made a time of extreme poverty and famine had to be in play. Swift mentions the high unemployment, citing stealing and begging as regularly occurring activities among the general public. Swift writes his piece in a very sarcastic tone, apparent to the reader. However, if the reader failed to pick up on this fact, Swift's proposal would seem gruesome and inhuman. It is essential for Swift's message to be conveyed that the reader see and understand the irony of his proposal. In using the sarcastic tone Swift is risking having some misinterpret his story for the sake of its effectiveness to those who do understand.