Please don’t worry that I’m getting ready to lecture you about compassion or other-directedness or all the so-called virtues.
He presumes his audience might have a t have about the purpose of his speech before they tune him out, but it also assures them that he has already considered their concerns and has made an effort to avoid catalyzing their natural anxieties.
Again, please don’t think that I’m giving you moral advice, or that I’m saying you are supposed to think this way, or that anyone expects you to just automatically do it. Because it’s hard. It takes will and effort, and if you are like me, some days you won’t be able to do it, or you just flat out won’t want to.
Wallace’s speech talked about decision making and the power of choice. His speech talked about changing a person’s perspective and attitude on others around them. The way a person thinks can have the biggest difference in their life and the way that you think not only impacts your life but all the people around you.
Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded.
He places himself at a lower level and points out his flaws to make himself seem just as human as the rest of us. For example, Wallace bluntly admits his flaws.
Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he’s in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am:
He brings up a situation where he is stuck in a traffic jam and he is cut off by a car. This makes Wallace angry at the time when the car got in his way but when he reflects on the situation.
The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.
He's appeal to pathos, He makes it clear that he wants us to make a good habit and we simply should try to find the good things and life and look at all situations through a positive view.
If I choose to think this way in a store and on the freeway, fine. Lots of us do. Except thinking this way tends to be so easy and automatic that it doesn’t have to be a choice.
He uses a logical approach to show people that they have a choice of how to look at the world and he proves that any body can choose how to act he also argues that people should be reasonable with other instead of viewing others as in their way.
If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness. Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear.
He's appeal pathos, the audience's emotional response. His repetition of “worship” and the parallelism of his sentences imitate the routine way people go about their lives. This the most basic human emotions people feel every day.
Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him,
He is try to tell the audience that the world does not always revolve around you and that there exist bigger and more important reasons why things happen.
I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too.
This appeal to ethos, this establishing credibility by demonstrating that he has experience in what he talking about.
If you’re like me as a student, you’ve never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think
He's appeal to Ethos, this is how he has experience about how he think and feel about college.
And I can think about how our children’s children will despise us for wasting all the future’s fuel, and probably screwing up the climate, and how spoiled and stupid and selfish and disgusting we all are, and how modern consumer society just sucks, and so forth and so on
He uses the first person to make himself the subject and he varied use of the first and second person points of view involves listeners in his thinking process.
But then you remember there’s no food at home. You haven’t had time to shop this week because of your challenging job, and so now after work you have to get in your car and drive to the supermarket. It’s the end of the work day and the traffic is apt to be: very bad.
This involves the audience in the process of his speech by drawing them into the story rather than simply making a claim and supporting it with facts. Wallace’s point of view choices are also apt.
your education really IS the job of a lifetime.
His suicide confirms this truth and it is one thing to understand that he is saying about approaching life, but it is completely different to maintain a compassionate mindset at every moment.
And I submit that this is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out.
Wallace’s suicide serves as evidence that he wasn’t even able to live day in and day out with the mindset he proposes.
This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger.
He intentionally uses first and second person points of view to address not only his audience but also himself–is ironic and haunting in light of his suicide.
“This is water.” “This is water.”
This reference to the fish’s habitat at the conclusion of the speech reminds the audience of how the speech began, and make together the strands of Wallace’s dense, winding argument. The audience leaves with a sense of completion because the speech’s structure seamlessly connects Wallace’s early example to his claim and evidence.
none of this is likely, but it’s also not impossible.
This would also an emotional effect on the audience, Wallace argues that people must use their rational abilities to feel compassion.
Maybe
He uses word of "maybe" at the begging of three consecutive sentences this make a rhythm that evokes emotion and amplifies his thought Wallace admits that in his hypothetical situation.
If you’re automatically sure that you know what reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won’t consider possibilities that aren’t annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options.
Wallace's appeal logos, to create a cause-effect construct that rationally proves his argument and Wallace offers his audience one way to look at the world through a series of examples that appeal to reason because he explains an action.
you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. Maybe she’s not usually like this. Maybe she’s been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness.
This appeal to Pathos, Wallace's spot on description of how people view everyday situations from a cynical perspective allow the audience or the reader to empathize with him.
happened to come wandering by
This abandoned atheist were most likely sent by God. This story support Wallace’s argument that “blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn’t even know he’s locked up” is the result of a lack of awareness.
“No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp.”
This appeal logos, the atheist incorrectly assumes that God does not exist because He was not there to rescue him; instead, he had to rely on “a couple of Eskimos.”
if you’re worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don’t be.
He uses rhetorical devices to make his argument convincing , and point of view this appeal to ethos, which testifies to a speaker's credibility. By bluntly admitting that he is not the wise old fish or the persona many commencement speakers adopt.
“What the hell is water?”
Wallace's appeal to logos, In both the fish and Eskimo stories, the audience logically concludes that characters in both situations suffer from flaws in their reasoning. The fish in Wallace’s story asks, “What the hell is water?”.
We are going to appoint justices—this is the best way to help the Second Amendment. We are going to appoint justices that will feel very strongly about the Second Amendment, that will not do damage to the Second Amendment.
This appeal Straw man, rump is misrepresenting and exaggerating Clinton's policy on gun control, not the complete abolishment of the second amendment. Trump is using this tactic to make his opponent seem more radical
, I want to build the wall. We need the wall. And the Border Patrol, ICE, they all want the wall.
This opposite of Slippery slope is if a can happen, then z will also happen, so we must let a happen. Trump says by building a wall, it will definitely keep immigrants out.
America is great, because America is good.
In this fallacy, Clinton provides a circular argument. She provides the answer with her statement. She is basically saying water is wet.
You’re the puppet!
This is Trump's response to Hillary calling him "Putin's puppet. Trump uses quoque by responding to criticism with more criticism. He accuses her of being the actual puppet since she called him a puppet.
her very sleazy
This appeal to ad hominem, Trump has been known to call the Clinton Campaign "sleazy." He is throwing insults at Clinton campaign to mess with credibility and reputation.
Such a nasty woman.
This appeal to ad hominem, Donald Trump interrupts Clinton calls her a nasty women. He wants people to think she is a bas person.
Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that’s OK and Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going, and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.
this also appeal to emotional because he talking about take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby and this relate to all the mothers and the baby he show how he really worry about this and he trying to appeal to the emotions the audience by portraying abortion in the most negative way possible.
And defend yourselves. I didn’t say nuclear. And defend yourself.
this appeal to an anaphora because he repeated And defend yourselves at the first and at the end to make the audience think carefully and agree with his point.
And on the day when I was in the Situation Room, monitoring the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, he was hosting the “Celebrity Apprentice.” So I’m happy to compare my 30 years of experience, what I’ve done for this country, trying to help in every way I could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead, with your 30 years, and I’ll let the American people make that decision.
Her arguments often center around her years of previous experience in law, politics and government, while at the same time dismissing Trump’s qualifications (or lack thereof).
You know, back in 1987, he took out a $100,000 ad in the New York Times, during the time when President Reagan was president, and basically said exactly what he just said now, that we were the laughingstock of the world. He was criticizing President Reagan. This is the way Donald thinks about himself, puts himself into, you know, the middle and says, “You know, I alone can fix it,” as he said on the convention stage.
While this appeals to many, it’s a tactic that implores you to use your head to make logical decisions. In order to truly persuade, influence, and engage an audience you need to win both heads and hearts.
make America great again, and it has to start now. We cannot take four more years of Barack Obama, and that’s what you get when you get her.
He great at pointing and name calling approach. He was able to convince the electoral college that America was severely broken and he was the only one who could “Make America Great Again”. Don’t misconstrue this as being an enviable trait though. Using pathos is a great method.
He went on to say, “Look at her. I don’t think so.” About another woman, he said, “That wouldn’t be my first choice.” He attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her “disgusting,” as he has called a number of women during this campaign. Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don’t think there is a woman anywhere who doesn’t know what that feels like. So we now know what Donald thinks and what he says and how he acts toward women. That’s who Donald is.
Hillary strongly favors the use of facts and figures to establish personal credibility, the credibility of the argument, and earn the right to be heard over such an aggressive opponent.
It’s called “Make America Great Again.” We’re going to make America great. We have a depleted military. It has to be helped, has to be fixed. We have the greatest people on Earth in our military. We don’t take care of our veterans. We take care of illegal immigrants, people that come into the country illegally, better than we take care of our vets. That can’t happen.
“Make America Great Again” were repeatedly bellowed from his lectern throughout his campaign to stir an emotional, patriotic response, while his brash comments around things like ‘building walls’ were designed to stir passion and anger amongst his supporters who felt personally hard done by by their country.
You know, I’ve been privileged to see the presidency up close. And I know the awesome responsibility of protecting our country and the incredible opportunity of working to try to make life better for all of you. I have made the cause of children and families really my life’s work. That’s what my mission will be in the presidency. I will stand up for families against powerful interests, against corporations. I will do everything that I can to make sure that you have good jobs, with rising incomes, that your kids have good educations from preschool through college. I hope you will give me a chance to serve as your president.
Hillary Clinton’s speaking style, and throughout her campaign her speeches and public appearances drew heavily on the ethos and logos methods of persuasion.
Donald has said he’s in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood. He even supported shutting the government down to defund Planned Parenthood. I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade, and I will defend women’s rights to make their own health care decisions.
She use logos attack Donald trump by saying the facts about hoe he' in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood. And she not will defend Planthood.
And so when I think about what we need to do, we have 33,000 people a year who die from guns. I think we need comprehensive background checks, need to close the online loophole, close the gun show loophole. There’s other matters that I think are sensible that are the kind of reforms that would make a difference that are not in any way conflicting with the Second Amendment.
She appeal ethos by taking about the number of people who had die from guns and she want everyone two be safe and don't want to increases the number of people who die from gun this also appeal to emotional as well.
I was thinking about a young girl I met here in Las Vegas, Carla, who is very worried that her parents might be deported, because she was born in this country but they were not. They work hard, they do everything they can to give her a good life.
This appeal to ethos she mentioned about the young girl and her family try to work hard and worried about her parents might be deported this make the audience think this is unfair for her and could have a better way to fix this.
He violated the red line in the sand, and he made so many mistakes, made all mistakes. That’s why we have the great migration. But she wanted to look good for the election. So they’re going in.
This is can be red herring because its about the red line in Syria, but the conversation was about Iraq.
I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now. I’ll look at it at the time.
Trump repeating is using an anaphora when repeating the phrase "I will look at it at the time.
And on the day when I was in the Situation Room, monitoring the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, he was hosting the “Celebrity Apprentice.”
Clinton attacks trump's experience and character.
Now we can talk about Putin. I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.
Red herring. Not arguing the main topic, straying away from the original argument.
I think what the FBI did and what the Department of Justice did, including meeting with her husband, the attorney general, in the back of an airplane on the tarmac in Arizona, I think it’s disgraceful. I think it’s a disgrace.
Here he is appealing to ignorance which says that he is correct because there is no evidence about FBI Yet this can still discredit his argument. Even then there is still plenty of evidence to suggest the FBI and which had nothing to do with the FBI.
The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy.
This is appeal to emotional when she talked about most heartbreaking, painful decision for families to make and to send the message across people that also have the same problem according in what she said.
And on the day when I was in the Situation Room, monitoring the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, he was hosting the “Celebrity Apprentice.”
I think this appeal to ethos because how she talk about bringing down Bin Laden that she was involved in.
I was taking on discrimination against African-American kids in schools.
And this also appeal to ethos when she says "I fight for racial equality and use this attack trump by saying he's racist.
So sad when she talks about violence at my rallies, and she caused the violence. It’s on tape.
This is an appeal to ignorance because there's no evidence to proved that Clinton was personally involved in what the Democratic operatives talked about.
We
she uses pronouns like "we", "our" and "you" a lot. This make the audience feel that they are involved and are a part and the importance of the audience and decreases the influence of herself, which shows that it is his intention to seem approachable and close to the people.
And I’ll tell you what, in particular in Chicago, people were hurt and people could have been killed in that riot. And that was now all on tape, started by her. I believe, Chris, that she got these people to step forward. If it wasn’t, they get their 10 minutes of fame. But they were all totally—it was all fiction. It was lies, and it was fiction.
This appeal fear and emotional because he said people were hurt and people could have been killed in that riot this make the audience feel bad and understand what he try to say.
She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.
Ad hominem. Attacking the feminist and not the argument.
want to get everybody out of the shadows, get the economy working, and not let employers like Donald exploit undocumented workers, which hurts them, but also hurts American workers.
This statement would be considered a logical fallacy and emotional when she say hurts them this is deep and make the audience feel it. It is considered a personal attack or an ad hominem because there seems to be no stable factual or logical explanation but is a personal attack.
Secretary Clinton, you have offered no specific plan for how you want to secure our southern border.
He using loaded language to characterize liberal positions while using neutral language to characterize trump's or conservative positions.
I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It’s all about the Constitution of—of—and so important, the Constitution the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint.
This appeal to logos he pretty straightforward explanation of what a justice should do.
ell, first of all, it’s great to be with you, and thank you, everybody. The Supreme Court: It’s what it’s all about. Our country is so, so—it’s just so imperative that we have the right justices.
Uses pathos as well as some hyperbole here, he is telling the audience that it's great to be with you, and thank you, everybody this helps to show his warm and comforting presence.
So I just left some high representatives of India. They’re growing at 8 percent. China is growing at 7 percent. And that for them is a catastrophically low number. We are growing—our last report came out—and it’s right around the 1 percent level. And I think it’s going down.
This is an appeal to ignorance because there's is no evidence has proved about the development will successful and he did not talk about how Idea, China and the United Sates are growing.
In Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the United States, probably you could say by far, they have more gun violence than any other city. So we have the toughest laws, and you have tremendous gun violence.
This appeal to false cause because Trump implies a causing the other. He presents no proof and evidence or reasoning to explain this causation. He also ignores any other potential explanation that can be inherent to this specific situation such as socio economies circumstances, gang rivalries or guns.
She gave us ISIS, because her and Obama created this huge vacuum, and a small group came out of that huge vacuum because when—we should have never been in Iraq, but once we were there, we should have never got out the way they wanted to get out. She gave us ISIS as sure as you are sitting there. And what happened is now ISIS is in 32 countries. And now I listen how she’s going to get rid of ISIS. She’s going to get rid of nobody.
This appeal to Logos trump gives evidence to support claim that Clinton & Obama are responsible for ISIS and also use ethos to attack that Clinton's so incompetent she created ISIS.
If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that’s OK and Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going, and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.
This is Straw Man, Trump attributes to Hillary Clinton and the moderator a position that they do not hold (Being ok with ripping a baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby). He also distorts a medical procedure by giving it a graphic moral dimension and hence forcing the situation hat any person with empathy or morality can't but agree with him this also appeal to emotion.
She’s going to get rid of nobody.
Pathos because this plays on audience's fear by painting a picture of a rapidly growing ISIS.
especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead, with your 30 years, and I’ll let the American people make that decision.
She used the word families and kids to make the audience how much she care and look out for and take care of kids and this appeals to ethos.
back in the 1970s, I worked for the Children’s Defense Fund. And I was taking on discrimination against African-American kids in schools. He was getting sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination in his apartment buildings.
Appeal Logos a big long string of evidence proving her experience is better than his.
If you become president, this country is going to be in some mess. Believe me.
This appeal to Pathos, Trump incite fear in crowd with vague, dire prediction when he says " this country is going to be in some mess" to make the audience think how Clinton really going to make the country in better way.
You were very much involved—excuse me. My turn. You were very much involved in every aspect of this country. Very much. And you do have experience. I say the one thing you have over me is experience, but it’s bad experience, because what you’ve done has turned out badly.
And here Trump appeal to Logos he used to make arguments stronger -agreeing with a point against when he says "you've got more experience than me") and then turning that point to your advantage when he says "but it's bad experience" by using logos and to proof that is ineffective by saying she have a bad experience.
I ask a simple question. She’s been doing this for 30 years. Why the hell didn’t you do it over the last 15, 20 years?
This appeal to ethos, He uses ethos attack Clinton that she can't make anything happen she's ineffective. Also his tone is changing to make the audience think this is true.