This means that you will make three posts per six weeks; you may comment at any time during the two-week period that the post remains open.
Do not e-mail me posts after discussions have closed!
Also, these discussions will require some reading, so do not skip over the selection(s) I give you!
You must answer using short-answer question format learned last semester in class. Begin with your thesis/main idea, and then explain your answer using your own ideas as well as quotations from the text.
It is highly encouraged that you respond to the posts made to your peers in addition to making your post; you may agree/disagree with this person, and explain why. Students wishing to achieve an "A" for the assignment will follow this suggestion.
__________
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/political-ad-tracker/most-recent
Copy and paste the above link into your browser to watch the following political advertisements from the 2012 presidential elections:
- Mitt Romney "Failing American Workers"
- Barack Obama "Since When?"
__________
Discussion topic choices:
- (#1) Explain which candidate appeared to be most defensive about this topic, and explain why you think so.
- (#2) According to what you see and hear in the advertisements, which of the two did you find most persuasive, and why?
- (#3) Which rhetorical appeals/fallacies did you recognize in these advertisements, and how did they affect your ability to believe the content of the advertisements?
Directions:
- Answer all questions in the comments section of this blog using the pen name you provided to me at the beginning of the year.
- Use correct grammar and spelling at all times when making your comments. No textspeak!
- Please tell me which discussion topic you have chosen in your comment.
Due Date: This post will remain open for comments and discussion until Monday, January 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM; after this time comments will close.
(2) I saw Barack Obama's advertisement as much more persuasive because of the facts that he proved and the heart- tugging pictures that the commercial used.
ReplyDeleteIn the advertisement, Obama claimed that despite Mitt Romney's complaint about Obama outsourcing jobs, Romney is the real reason for it. He does this by explaining that Romney sponsored a company that distributed jobs to sweatshops in China. Obama backs up this claim by flashing a picture of a newspaper clipping that supported his reasoning.
Another reason why the commercial was more persuasive was that it used the emotional appeal efficiently. Obama did this by publishing heart- wrenching pictures of Chinese workers who were paid "next to nothing," slaving to make items for the U.S. Mitt Romney mainly used the ethical appeal, which did not really spark my interest.
In conclusion, President Barack Obama was much more successful at persuading me in that he used both logical and emotional appeals efficiently.
I agree with Hello123. Emotion is the easiest way to win citizen's hearts when voting or just plainly listening to where America is headed. In my opinion Barack Obama proved that not only by sounding concern, but at the same time pointing out mistakes in Mitt Romney's statement. Even though they both used black and white imagery for a more dramatic effect and music with a tone of voice that really make on mind's think, the way Barack Obama leaned more into emotional appeal made the decision easier to accept what he said over Mitt Romney.
DeleteQuestion #2: I believe that Barack Obama's advertisement was the most persuasive because of the facts and emotional pictures he used. The facts could have been wrong but he used them in a way to make it seem like they were true. Also, he used neutral words in his campaign. With Mitt Romney's advertisement, he seemed to use very negative words like "cheating". To me, his tone also came across as a little rude when he was trying to prove his point. His point was to try and make Obama look bad, but he could have done it in a nicer way.
ReplyDelete#2) Both of the campaigns were, in my opinion, not very successful in persuading me. However, Barack Obama's campaign appealed more to my emotions so it was more persuasive. He gave statements that were not entirely false which made his campaign more reliable than Mitt Romney's. MItt Romney's campgain was mostly based on logical appeals that, according to article following it, were misleading.
ReplyDeleteInstead of just stating facts, Obama's campaign showed why the facts made a difference in Mitt Romney's argument, which i thought was a very good tactic to persuade people.
Mitt Romney showed himself in the commercial, which wss less effective than the "Wrenching pictures of Chinese workers", to quote Hello123.
In conclusion i thought that even though both candidates had misleading claims, Obama's claims stood out becuase of his emotional appeal.
His conclusion "Since When?", was a perfect way to end the commercial, and all of these things made his campaign more persuasive in my opinion.
(#2) According to what you see and hear in the advertisements, which of the two did you find most persuasive, and why?
ReplyDelete*In my opinion both ad's where very persusasive, but if I had to choose which one was the most persuasive out of the two it would be Obama's. Because his add included the two appeals: logic and emotional while Mitt's ad showed less logical and emotional information so i would have to dissagree with After All This Time...Always comment "MItt Romney's campgain was mostly based on logical appeals" but Most of his so called facts where not true!
So I believe Obama's ad was most persuasive
I agree that Mitt Romney's facts were not true, but his advertisement was based on logical appeals. If you didn't research the claims, you would take them to be true. To restate my opinion, I'm not saying that his logical appeals were true, but he used logical appeals. I do agree with LoveBug that Obama used two appeals, so his argument to me made a better impact. To clear the misunderstanding of my comment, I am not saying Mitt Romney's statements were facts, but he used logic to appeal to the masses.
Deletefrom Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2, I think the Barack Obama advertisement was more persuasive because it has more facts to tell you that Mitt Romney isn't gonna help do anything with the problems in china. In his advertisement he also applies pictures that get you emotional, the facts may not be true but how the advertisement showed it it made it look true. So the most persuasive advertisement was the Barack Obama " since when" n my opinion.
from PoohBear23:
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1:
I think that both candidate did good because in both of the videos it talked about somthing different. In Mitt Romney video it show how like the economy waqs going down in the United States and how in China it went up. To me it showed alot of details and how Mitt Romney could change the economy and the money. That's why i like his better then Barack Obama's video. But I did like them both.
Question #2:
The first video was more persuasive because it was talking about the economy. And how Mitt Romney could change that. Than how Barack Obama change the economy up differently in China than in the United States. For awhile China had grew more than 25% the video said and when i saw that I was amazed because as I was learning in class is that China is poorer than the United States. But bascially in the first video Mitt Romney is trying to persuave you to vote for him so he could change all that and make the United States first again with the economy.
Question #3:
The rhetorical appeal/fallacies that recognize me was that how they were mainly talking about the economy and how they can make it better if you vote for one of them Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. The affect that this 2 videos had on me is that whe i saw that China was before us in money wise i was surpised. That shouldn't be like that at all.
Question #3:
ReplyDelete+In my opinion, both candidates have their own different way of persuading us into their side. Mitt Romney leaned more into the logical appeal side of things. He used his many facts and statistics that I was unaware of such as, tax numbers and percentiles which is good to make a slid argument, but could be harming if it seems to have little concern on other subjects.
+Barack Obama, however, used more of an ethical appeal, pointing out what the mistakes his opponents and past presidents had made before. He led deeper into the reason why choosing him would be the right thing opposed to his candidate. He used examples of our nation's army, the middle class, and better opportunities of the citizens. This was good in showing concern for the citizens, but could harm what he's trying to say if he lacks a good premise.
+Regardless of their differences, they both used also emotional appeal in the end. The music and seriousness of their tones made me feel that they really cared about the cause they were speaking up for.
from slimylizard:
ReplyDelete1. To me Mitt Romney was most defensive about the topic because he put Obama out by saying and explaining what he did wrong to America and how we can change that.
2. I also agree with "Guesswhothisis" using ethical appeal by putting all the cons that Obama had done.But I do think Mitt Romney put more persuasive in his video.
3. Actually I think both of the campaigns both logical and ethical appeals. When Obama was saying "Since when" did Mitt Romney do this for us. Or Mitt Romney stating that if we chose Obama America will be very bad.
(#1) Explain which candidate appeared to be most defensive about this topic, and explain why you think so.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mitt Romney was the most defensive in this situation. His attack seemed rushed and not clearly thought through as there was a lot of misleading information inside. He seems to be trying to draw attention away from himself and toward Obama indicating he might be trying to keep his argument/plan safe and point out the flaws of Obama's plan.
Obama's argument was in response to Romney and acts like a counter/negation. He points out that Romney hasn't been tough on China and his point is invalid rather than trying to defend himself by attacking Romney
iloveham23:
ReplyDelete#2 I found Obama's advertisement more persuasive because the jobs that were sent to China they were low wage and Romney had business with China before the jobs were sent overseas. He made sure they would profit from them. In Romney's advertisement he said that half a million manufacturing jobs in America were sent to China under Obama's term and that that was the reason why the people in America lost their jobs, but this happened way before Obama was even elected. So, all the manufacturing jobs that were sent to China happened before the 21st century.
from winkgirl:
ReplyDelete(#1)
I think shaespeare is using imagery when he say " when forty winters shall besiege thy brow". I think Shakespeare is comparing the winter days to a womens eye brow.