This article was written by John Seiter, Harold Kinzer and Harry Weger Jr. They write for Routledge about nonverbal background behavior in live debates. They made a study claiming how nonverbal background behaviors influence the audience and the credibility of the speaker. They used evidence from past debates, including John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, watching the opponent not speaking doing gestures like shaking his head. Not only does opponents attacking each other verbally through a debate have an impact on the audience, this study shows that nonverbal behavior influences it, if not more. The audience knows that the opponent should not interrupt with the other person is talking, so they are coming up with a new strategy. They uses nonverbal behaviors to draw the attention of the audience to them rather the opponent speaking in that moment. The authors seem credible in how they did their research to do this study and how they conducted this study themselves rather than getting facts from the internet. There seems to be no bias in this article. Those who would disagree with this article would be the people who think that the only way to influence the audience is by how the candidate speaks on either an issue or talking about the other opponent negatively. This article would appeal to anyone interested in voting for the presidential debate. People tend to educate themselves on who they should vote for before they choose a preferred candidate, and articles like these will have them paying close attention to the candidates body language along with their verbal responses to figure out who they like better.

The author Victor Williams writes for The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. The main focus of the article is the Electoral College, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The author is trying to prove that both candidates are very different. Williams uses facts about Trump and Clinton to support his claim. He also has facts and statistics about the Electoral college to support him. The author states that the only thing Clinton and Trump have in common is their high unfavorable poll ratings. They both are seen as unfavorable. This could be a huge reason why they attack each other during debates. They both are seen as bad candidates and there needs to be someone who looks worse. One of the opponents must look better than the other, so there can be a winner. This is an article written for the Columbus School of Law, this is very credible and would have to be to make it on their scholarly articles section of they webpage. In my opinion this article is very bias towards Clinton. It seems like the entire article is trying to make Trump look bad. The author seems to leave out details about Trump that would make him look good in this article. The article starts out by talking about Clinton’s achievements then immediately goes to criticizing Trump, calling him names like “bombastic billionaire". This would appeal to the Democratic Party because it is making Clinton look good and Trump look bad, so that people who read this will want to vote for Clinton rather than Trump. People that would disagree with this article would people the people voting for Trump because they do not want the public to think badly about Trump.

This article was written by five authors Yu Wang, Jiebo Luo, Richard Niemi, Yuncheng and Tianan Hu. The article was made in March 2016, it is recent. This article’s main focus is running a study about Donald Trump's tweets. It is showing that his tweets that attack his opponent Hilary Clinton are the most favorable. They use their own research as evidence to prove their claim. Attacking his opponent during a debate is not the only strategy Trump is using to win. He is attacking through social media. It is stated that Trump has 5.46 million followers on twitter. Not only are the millions of people watching the presidential debates hearing the ridicule about Clinton, but now it will be seen all over social media. Trump’s average amount of likes on his tweets are about 3 thousand. His tweets regarding Clinton ranges from 2 to 11 thousand likes. Using social media opponents can attack each other to make the other look bad in ways other than saying it on live television. The credibility of the authors is high due to them actually conducting the experiment. They did all the research and work that went with making sure their prediction was accurate. They are all also either Political or Computer Science majors at the University of Rochester. This article would appeal to Trump supporters, especially ones that follow him on twitter. This would appeal to the younger generation because that is who uses twitter. This article’s main focus is Trump which could possibly make this article bias. They could be Trump supporters and are using their research to advertise Trump.

The authors of the article are three journalists from The New York Times, Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman. The main focus on this article are the strategies used by opponents Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump to prepare for their debate. The authors’ claims are that their strategies reveal their own personal strengths and opponents weaknesses. Both candidates do their research on each other. Clinton and her team did months of research on Trump to ensure that she will get under his skin at this debate. Trump as well has been doing his research by watching videos of Clinton to figure out her vulnerabilities. The candidates plan to use what they find out to attack their opponent at the debate. The answer to my question,”why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”, is that they believe these strategies will help them look better at the debate. The people that would disagree with this would be people on either party voting for the opposite opponent. It would make a Trump or Clinton supporter angry to see the ways the opponent is playing dirty, because they want their candidate to win. The article is fairly new which makes it more credible, but The New York Times is a more liberal news source. This could create bias because they could try to make Trump look worse than Hilary due to their own political preference. Although they do seem credible in the way that they equally talk about each party. They do not just talk about one, in each section they have a paragraph for each candidate. This article would appeal to either party because it shows the strategies of each party rather than just one. Both parties would be interested in finding out what their preferred candidate is going to do to win. People voting want who they vote for to win.

The author of this article is journalist Eli Watkins. He writes for CNN news, a non-scholarly cable news net work. His main focus of the article is vice president nominee Bill Weld and his strategy to win the debate. One of Watkins' coworkers Jake Tapper spoke with Weld and discovered his strategy. Watkins makes Weld’s claim very clear by the title and the first sentence of the article. Weld believes that the way to win is to focus on attacking Donald Trump. Weld believes that he needs to peel off Republican votes from Trump. This article also clearly answers my question of “why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”. Opponents believe that attacking each other is the key to winning an election. Those who would disagree with Weld would say that to win the election you must be a good candidate. Making the opponent look bad does not always look good on your part. Watkins’ credibility is in high standings due to his coworker having a personal encounter with Weld, instead of taking something her heard off the media. Weld verbally said that his way to win is to attack Trump to Tapper and CNN. This is also a recent article that was updated on October 5th. Watkins’ article would appeal to a Democratic audience. People that are voting Hilary Clinton and Bill Weld want to hear what they have to say. This will appeal to them because there is nothing more that want to hear than finding out their preferred candidate won. They will want to know how to get their side to victory. CNN is a know liberal news source which is a bias because they are writing about the libertarian vice president. They could very well be reporting on this because it is their beliefs instead of trying to be a mediator.

This article is catching people's attention because people want to know if this situation is real or not. It has been all over social media and it just keeps spreading. There are new videos everyday trending and even a twitter account dedicated to making this situation go viral. This article focuses on how they think the overreaction is issue here not the clowns. I agree yes the overreaction drawing attention to this is not good, but I also believe this can be very dangerous due to the fact that there are sick people in the world we live in that will take advantage of this. These people will see the reaction this situation is causing and make it real. Some people get pleasure out of other's pain. It is causing a huge commotion and people are scared. There are videos on social media that I believe are real. Personally I am terrified of clown and always have been so this is my worst nightmare coming to life. The more this becomes viral the more it will become an issue. Once the word stops going around this situation will die off and anything thing to scare people will join the media.

How do you think or dont think it will benefit the less fortunate if Clinton became president and raised taxes on the wealthy?

Why do you think during a debate it is so common for opponents to attack each other?

How do you think that creating 10 million new jobs will or will not benefit the US?

Based on this statistic who would you consider to be a better president and why?

If Trump is making all these mistakes how is it that only 4 newsrooms are noticing this and getting the word out?

If you were to ask me what I think of the case I would say that Adnan was innocent. I do not believe there is enough evidence and that things are being left out of his case. Adnan is comfortable in her prison. From what Koenig stated her, it sounds like Adnan is trying to live out the rest of high school he missed. He has multiple job, a group of friends and is managing clubs. I truly believe that he is just a innocent kid that was convicted for nothing.

Koenig's use of pathos in this quote physically made my heart hurt. I could not imagine being Hae's mother and not truly knowing what happened to my daughter. I am imagining a women, who does not speak english, trying to understand and cope with everything, but not being able to because how could she? Her daughter is gone and she does not know what happened to her. It is so unfair to her. A parent should never have to bury a child.

I find myself asking the same questions Koenig is asking. Why would Adnan call the detective if he murdered Hae? Let's say Adnan did kill Hae, wouldn't he be nervous talking to the detective or maybe accidentally slip and say something to make them think he could be a suspect? Then the other part of me is asking if this boy is just a genius and knew that something like this would have people thinking he could be innocent.

Koenig has her audience questioning Jay's credibility. A big part of his story involves picking up Adnan at the Best Buy by this nonexistent phone booth. How was a detail this big not investigated by the police? It makes me so mad because they have professional investigators, it is their job to know to know all details. It also makes me feel bad for Adnan because if he did not kill Hae then there is an innocent man rotting in prison.

Maybe I am bias because I want to believe that Adnan is innocent, but shouldn't people who look into cases for a living deciding if a person is guilty or not, saying they do not believe Adnan is guilty have a say in the matter? They believe that there was not enough evidence to prove he is guilty. I think that if professionals are saying this then the case needs to be looked at again.

Koenig does a good job on expressing pathos here. Throughout all of Serial I have wanted to believe that Adnan is innocent. Due to the lack of evidence proving him guilty I believe he is innocent. What hit me is what Koenig just stated right here. Maybe Adnan is fooling everyone with his charm and is actually a sociopath? I really do not want to believe it, but this could very well be a possibility. I like the fact that they brought Deirdre into the story. I really believe she will help solve this case. She really seems to know what she is doing. It gives me hope that the truth will be revealed because, as you can probably tell by past annotations, I am sick of Koenig's predictions.

This does not look good on Koenig's credibility. As an audience member, I believe it is Koenig's job to tell me the truth behind this case. People continuously listen to her podcasts for one reason, to find out what truly happened to Hae. If she can not give her audience what they want then no one will listen to her next series of podcasts. She constantly keeps thinking she knows he is innocent or she knows he is guilty. One little fact changes her whole perception on the case. It is getting annoying because personally I just want the solid truth behind the story, just like every other audience member listening to her speak every week.

I agree with the author's statement of Serial being based on Koenig's obsession with the case rather than the actual crime. In episode 6 of Serial Koenig gets very offended when Adnan says that she does not know him. It was the type of offended you would get if your best friend told you that you two were not friends. I agree completely with Adnan, Koenig does not know him; she knows the side of him that gets her the facts for her investigation. Koenig also gets very rapped up in her facts. She becomes bias the moment she finds out one minor detail. One minor detail changes her entire mindset, but then she finds something that crosses with it and immediately switches sides. Trusting Koenig is very hard due to this. She constantly leads on her audience. The author's claim in this article is that Koenig, being white, comes from a different world than Adnan or Jay. That she is trying to understand where they come from she just can not.

This looks really bad on Koenig's credibility. Her physically admitting that she was making up Serial as she went along does not look good on her part. She admits that she thinks she knows the truth then finds out she's wrong then does more reporting, which is good on her part that she is looking into it, but she leads on her audience with false information. When she should be doing her job by giving her audience the actual truth.

This entire story gave me the chills. This young girl was so brave to not only write her story here, but tell it to an interviewer. I know many people who keep loved ones deaths bottled up when they should be keeping their memory alive. Just as this family did with the fathers love of the packers. I truly believe that sprits do not go away and that their father had a big part in getting people to know this story. It was so amazing of the Packers to share their story with the world and keep their fathers memory alive.

This creepy story drew my attention because I am terrified of clowns and I had to read more to make sure that it was no where near me or I would have to move. What I am questioning is why this clown has still not been found even with all the multiple sightings. It could not be that difficult finding a man dressed as a clown. It would be like finding the elephant of the room.

This article was brought to my attention because of the title. Coming from a single mother household I got curious and had to know more. This article personally had an affect on me. The statement "some single moms say they have to be both mother and father to their kids" could not be more true. My mother has always played the role in both, so reading this article I could not help but smile. The mother did such a brave and heart warming thing for her child. The author did a great thing by writing about this story and making it known.

All the facts leading up to this moment do not help Adnan. Adnan looks very guilty due to the evidence. The letter, Laura's story and now Cathy's story. He especially looks suspicious here not saying where he is going and acting weird when he first arrived to Cathy's house. Readers are more likely to believe the witnesses because if Adnan really murdered Hae, he would of course, lie about it.

Koenig really wants the audience to think here. Another witness is brought into the investigation, Laura, who states that her neighbor saw Hae's body and told her about it. When Koenig talks to the neighbor about the story she heard from Laura he denies everything. What has me confused is how would Laura just come up with a story like that? Why would she just lie about an important detail in Adnan's case? It has me wondering if the neighbor was lying by saying the story was not true.

This is now the second time Adnan has talked about killing Hae. The first time is when he told Jay, which could be something Jay made up, and now it is written on paper. Jay could have lied, but now there is written evidence and does not look good on Adnan part. Although it is stated that they were joking around in the letter, there is no proof that the "I'm going to kill" part was meant in a joking manner. The fact that it is physically written down on paper in pen, which Adnan was writing in, is a good reason to believe that Adnan did kill Hae.

Koenig may seem bias here, but she has a valid excuse. She is not just going by what she hears, but she goes out and tests if the time of the murder could have been possible. Yes it is possible, but it would have had to be done very quickly. In my opinion I just do not believe the times make sense. I do not believe you could get from one place to another, wait for buses, traffic and get to Best Buy then murder someone within 21 minutes. It seems impossible to me.

Koenig uses this evidence to support Adnan. In my opinion Koenig is very bias and has been bias in every episode, but has a good reason to support him here. Koenig really has the audience questioning not only Jay's story, but also why the this was not used in trial to Adnan's benefit. I have noticed that there is a pattern of things being left out that would benefit Adnan.

This particular statement made by Bo's mother stood out to me, and I am sure to many others. The author really tries to appeal to our emotions here. A mother, especially a mother of an autistic child, never wants to hear about their child being alone. It gives a heartwarming feeling that there are still good people in this world, and that the mother got to know that her child was not lonely. This article really warmed my heart, because my little cousin is autistic. I have heard many stories from him about kids in his grade bullying him, and I have noticed that he really does not have many friends. It really upsets me, but this article gave me a better mind set knowing there are still good people out there.

The author opens this article with a humorous eye catching line. Everyone loves pizza and everyone loves money. According to the statistics the author provided in this article people would choose pizza over money. Pizza provides people more motivation to get work done then a bonus check. This article reminds me of the time I worked at Dairy Queen, and there is a yearly event called "free cone day", but to the workers known as a day in hell. It is the worst day to work and I got stuck working it. My coworker and I walked into work miserable, and my boss could tell. She told us once the shift was over she would buy us pizza. Surely we got through that shift just knowing we would get pizza in the end.

The author is trying to grab the attention of fans of Selena Gomez. What brought me to the article is the fact that I am a Selena Gomez fan. I have loved her since I was in middle school. The title really grabbed my attention by bold words stating "Selena Gomez's disease". The author wants to grab your attention to read more into it. The author includes what the disease Lupus is to inform her fans of what she is being put through. It is stated that Gomez canceled her tour dates to deal with her disease. That needed to be said so if people brought tickets to later tour date they can get their money back. This was written to inform fans of Gomez's current life situation.

Koenig includes this statement because there was a suspicion that Mr. S knew about the body and came looking for it. Mr. S' sister-in-law was Hae's teacher the year she was murdered. Although Mr. S' sister-in-law says that she does not believe that Mr. S knew about the body, Koenig talked a lot about not remembering things in the first episode of Serial. There could very well be a possibility that Mr. S' sister-in-law could have said something to Mr. S without remembering it. The mystery remains if Mr. S knew about the body or not.

Koenig is trying to get the audience to question if Mr. S is trustworthy. Most people would read this and picture Mr. S as a creepy stereotypical man in a beige trench coat streaker. People would be thinking can you trust a man who has been arrested and had multiple police reports written on him over the course of three years. One would believe that he should not be trusted. Koenig also includes that he lied about his clothes getting stolen. Which really has the audience questioning if what Mr. S is saying is true.(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uNab0OpOT6o/VUxlxC8scXI/AAAAAAAAEfs/BIpJBHjlwyc/s1600/streaker.jpg) an image of a stereotypical trench coat streaker

Koenig is really trying to express the fact that Mr. S' story is fishy and from what the evidence is saying could be a complete lie. Mr. S claims that he was at Leakin' Park to use the bathroom. He is claiming that he came across the log when the path he took lead no where near the long. Koenig is trying to claim that possibly Mr. S was looking for the body. The body was impossible to find. It was stated earlier that he worked for a school district. He could have heard about it through one of his students.

Koenig includes this to show that Hae lived in a city where people getting murdered and buried into a park was a normal thing. The man stated that while you are trying to bury a body you are bound to find someone else's body. As in that burying a body is a common everyday routine. Not many cities have a known place to bury a body.

morgan_miller66