A Rhetorical Analysis Of Persuasive Speech
Speech Analysis-Republican Presidential Debate-CU Boulder
Frist of all, Debate was not organized at a place of everyone’s reach. I cannot think why anyone chose to have debate in such a small community where almost everyone has met what they have dreamed in their life. Boulder is a community where there are no people left behind and are not hard hit by country’s harsh political moves. It sounds to me that venue selected for debate came from a mindset of staying away from possible agitations from the marginalized, stereotyped, segregated, frustrated, and downtrodden people. Exclusion was immensely reflected. Audience participatory privileges seem to be enjoyed by dominant social groups and upper class people. The presidential candidacy reflected …show more content…
Often time, prolonged time and importance was given to publically well-known figures like Donald Trump being wealthy real estate business man, Ben Carson-a retired neuro surgeon and Jeb Bush-an elite from political family back ground. No cameras turned around to candidates like Governor Chris Christie. Moderators did not give much importance to ask questions to him unless he interrupts others in the middle while they are making their points, and tries to justify him as a better candidate than others. The statement Chris made regarding fancies football interrupting Jeb Bush while Bush was talking to answer Quintanilla’s question was weighty enough to led debate towards matters of public and government concerns. He alerted moderators not to deviate away from the topics of public and nation’s concern. He stated “let’s not talk about fancies, talk about how we can make better America by clearing debt, producing more jobs and securing America from terrorist like AL Quade and ISIS”-this statement was able to draw emotion of audiences, viewers and public. Finally, based on what public/community and students of CU Boulder said about debate, it is not that difficult to conclude that the debate was more divisive than binding every social groups and make them engaged as part of the politics. No common policy set up, management of conflicts, better civic-private relationship were endorsed by candidates,
Frist of all, Debate was not organized at a place of everyone’s reach. I cannot think why anyone chose to have debate in such a small community where almost everyone has met what they have dreamed in their life. Boulder is a community where there are no people left behind and are not hard hit by country’s harsh political moves. It sounds to me that venue selected for debate came from a mindset of staying away from possible agitations from the marginalized, stereotyped, segregated, frustrated, and downtrodden people. Exclusion was immensely reflected. Audience participatory privileges seem to be enjoyed by dominant social groups and upper class people. The presidential candidacy reflected …show more content…
Often time, prolonged time and importance was given to publically well-known figures like Donald Trump being wealthy real estate business man, Ben Carson-a retired neuro surgeon and Jeb Bush-an elite from political family back ground. No cameras turned around to candidates like Governor Chris Christie. Moderators did not give much importance to ask questions to him unless he interrupts others in the middle while they are making their points, and tries to justify him as a better candidate than others. The statement Chris made regarding fancies football interrupting Jeb Bush while Bush was talking to answer Quintanilla’s question was weighty enough to led debate towards matters of public and government concerns. He alerted moderators not to deviate away from the topics of public and nation’s concern. He stated “let’s not talk about fancies, talk about how we can make better America by clearing debt, producing more jobs and securing America from terrorist like AL Quade and ISIS”-this statement was able to draw emotion of audiences, viewers and public. Finally, based on what public/community and students of CU Boulder said about debate, it is not that difficult to conclude that the debate was more divisive than binding every social groups and make them engaged as part of the politics. No common policy set up, management of conflicts, better civic-private relationship were endorsed by candidates,