Custom «Joining the Conversation» Essay Paper

In United States of America, when people think of politics; they usually focus on either Democrats or Republicans. People believe that these are the views of politics; nonetheless, people usually have diverse beliefs when it comes to politics of the United States. Most outstandingly, numerous views emerge during shows like the Daily Show, which is a comedy show that gives satirizes false information that people tend to believe concerning politics and other issues. The perception of most individuals towards comedy shows such as the one hosted by Jon Stewart is usually associated with the process of making people laugh. In reality, the The Daily show offers insights to the audience through its originality and creativeness. This creativity comes from focusing on the current issues concerning political, media, societies’ and government’s views. In most cases, comedy focuses on informing the audience that in reality, what they do not believe can happen. An element that is extremely crucial in comedy is speaking about the truth where it lacks. This comes from the people’s belief that truth sets them free. Therefore, where analysts converge, there must be mistruths and the basic requirement, which is satirical. After watching the show that depicted the 1^st October, 2012 presidential debate, personally, I realized that John Stewart is a gifted comedian who is capable of using anything to deride something that politicians, media, religious leaders or government do.

•  

  0

  Preparing Orders

•  

  0

  Active Writers

•  

  0%

  Positive Feedback

•  

  0

  Support Agents

 

Title of your paper

Type of service

Type of assignment

Number of pages

-

+

Academic level

Timeframes

Spacing

Currency

USD

• Total price

Continue to order

 

Everyone strives to make the world a better place for human habitation. However, everyone will agree that the entire process is likely to take too long. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart titled, “Democalypse 2012 - Negate Expectations - The Presidential Debates” was extremely impressive. The two presidential candidates had the opportunity of telling the common people concerning their strategies towards making the world a better place. Looking at the arguments from both sides, democrats and republicans, it became apparent that both President Obama and Governor Romney used ethos to demonstrate that they are honest. Waisanen, Becker, and Xenos affirm, “Trustworthy is a vital tool in all areas from the family setting to global business relationships” (2010). Both presidential candidates use logos and ethos to tell people about their ideas on how to address the issue of war. From my point of view, it is difficult to comprehend the manner in which they argued fervently, regarding the issue of war. Issues of the economy are vital and ought to receive much attention. Nonetheless, as they both talked about economy, job creation and ensuring that the world expands to become a better place. How long will this process take? It is likely to take too long.

Secondly, it is unpleasant to hear how the two presidential candidates blame each other by vaguely using numerous means of manipulation to persuade their listeners. However, for the purposes of debate, it is acceptable to use such tactics to manipulate the audience. This aims at ensuring that one is at par with the opponent. Therefore, one such instance is when President Obama accuses Governor Romney of swaying his views. Moreover, this creates discomfort to the audience, because they always aim at hearing their representatives argue based on facts. However, Romney seemed unhappy; the audience may view that as a way of manipulation too. Another instance is when both candidates present confusing arguments, some that may be perceived irrelevant to the deliberation. This is a tool when employed by two debaters is unlikely to help in figuring out the winner. In this instance, listeners are likely to get confused. As much as one may say that Romney had an upper hand on military issues, much of his views come from Obama’s ideas. This creates a situation whereby both the audience is incapable of noting the difference.

According to Jon Stewart, the two presidential candidates hardly addressed weighty issues that affect people of the United States. He says, “Both President Obama and Governor Romney were merely trying to influence or lure the electorates by merely citing things that are remarkably open” (Stewart, 2012). All they did was fighting one another using words, whereby each accused the other of not being practical. He further contends that some of the most fundamental issues affecting the people of the United States became sidelined. In the future, planners of such debates should ensure that presidential candidates strategize prior to debate, and ensure that they address the issues at hand. This will help them to deliberate on issues of prime importance while disregarding the unnecessary ones. In this debate, it was clear that instead of the two presidential candidates focusing on the issues at hand. They constantly interrupted each other to ensure that the electorate does not absorb the points. This instance is likely to leave the audience pondering, concerning the general outcome of the debate; whether it is accurate or not.

Nonetheless, it is important to mention that as much as the two candidates got their points across, President Obama used the strongest accusations against Governor Romney. The President did so by listing numerous things that Governor Romney stated earlier on in his campaign trail. When a debater uses one’s past ideas during the campaign, it becomes obvious that the audience is likely to applaud the debater since he reminds them of the past deeds. The past deeds are what the electorate uses to judge a candidate. The use of one’s past ideas as Governor Romney did, helped President Obama to gain supporters. In fact, Obama uses Romney’s previous comments to portray him as a flighty Governor who is probably going to use such tactics or ideas to make policies that are unsuitable for the American’s stability.

On one hand, Governor Romney was not clear in his views. Particularly, the issues he wanted to employ in ensuring that American’s lives transform. Change for the nation is the most valuable thing when electing leaders who are to serve in the interest of the people. Conversely, it became apparent upon questioning Governor Romney, and all he does is turning them around and questioning what Obama did in his tenure as the US President. The interest of the electorate is to hear Governor Romney talk of his past development record, achievements, and what exactly he plans to change in the nation. From the debate, I was optimistic that President Obama was an agent for change, which the US needed. However, there are numerous instances whereby both candidates used logical accounts or appeals when speaking and occasionally expressed emotions. I believe President Obama shows composure, and is certain in his words, while Mitt Romney expresses himself extraordinarily quickly and in the due course tripped his words. Nonetheless, Romney also at some point gained support after mentioning some of his achievements and what he planned for the nation in a very sketchily manner. Yet, Obama still insisted on mentioning Romney’s failures. We must accept the fact that it is necessary for debaters to respect each other’s position by ensuring they do not blame ones actions.

Reviewing the debate on the Daily Show on 1^st October 2012, Obama seemed more focused, and it helped him to deteriorate Romney’s efforts. Obama did so by stating his position regarding affairs raised by the mediator. On the issue about foreign affairs and foreign policies, Mitt Romney appeared well-informed and deliberated, while defending himself. At this point, Obama was also quick to attack Romney by accusing him of offering contradictory statements with his original thoughts. Nevertheless, I felt that President Obama would have mentioned about his plan and position regarding the future of the United States, rather than worrying about Governor Romney’s opinions. Obama and Romney are gifted speakers. Nevertheless, Obama appeared calmer and used logos in supporting his position while Romney used ethos in most of his deliberations. Both of them share similar oratory skills.

President Obama uses persuasive speech, while Governor Romney talks of Iraq and the troops. Romney believes that they have to send more troops while Obama insists that it will be better if “More troops are brought back home” (Stewart, 2012). I do not agree with Obama in some instances, because he sometimes uses offensive stances. This is apparent when he accuses Romney blatantly regarding Romney’s education plan. Obama dwells on the past, which is advantageous; though, it is crucial to talk about the future plans. Moreover, Obama appeared more development oriented than Governor Mitt Romney. Romney thought that America will undergo through a drastic economic change, which according to my beliefs is not possible.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that Governor Romney established his credibility by pointing out all he did as the Governor of Massachusetts. He also presented his ideas with proper reasoning and purpose. Obama should have focused on the things he implemented as the US President. He should have talked of how he is going to address the issues that Americans currently face. More so, it was stated in the show that an incumbent President should be able to tell people what he plans for the future, rather than focusing on disapproving someone who has never have ascended to the highest office in the world. One suffers confusion when Obama asserts that Romney’s opinions are wrong. How can ones belief be wrong? I believe this is an instance that portrayed Obama as intelligible. He should have been confident to defend his position.

In conclusion, it is essential for presidential debates to focus on issues that affect the nation, rather than placing blames on one another. President Obama and Romney as the debaters lack the confidence of facing the electorates with issues at hand. As effective speakers, they allowed themselves to deliberate on some essential issues, but rhetorically for the purposes of debate and not for the nation (Becker, et al 2009). I believe that they employed such tactics, because they knew that the popular vote is split down between them. Each of the candidates aims at persuading the remaining small percentage of the undecided voters. It is noteworthy that when deliberating on pertinent issues that affect a country in general; the manner in which one presents his or her arguments is extremely crucial. In terms of diction, I commend both President Obama and Governor Romney. This is noticeable when they both answer questions; they focus on ensuring that they use phrases that help to enhance understanding. Therefore, I believe that the deciding factor of the past election was the candidate’s capability to connect with American people by addressing the issues that affect the American people. Lastly, The Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart is extremely instrumental for the common people. Overall, the debate was a proper tool to help the electorate decide.