Benjamin Nguyen Ms. Moccia
9/25/16 Ap Language
Response to Donald Trump Speech
Donald Trump's speech appealed to both the ethos and logos within me, primarily. Mr. Trump's development of ethos and his credibility by presenting the flaws of his opponent Former Secretary Clinton allows his voters and potential voters to see him in a better light. Trump states, "This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness. But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy." This statement shakes even further the already faulty credibility and ethos of Former Secretary Clinton while also playing slightly on pathos, addressing an encroaching fear such as ISIS. Mr. Trump's clear cut usage of facts and numbers appeared greatly to the logos and sensibility within me, awakening some previously unknown statistics about the condition of our country. Mr.Trump states, "Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years." This powerful realization played on logos with a slight notion of pathos, Mr. Trump has a way of adding emotion within each of his other rhetorical devices, to create an even more effective statement. By these reasons, Mr. Trump's speech was light years ahead more effective then Former Secretary Clinton's, and relied heavily on the usage of pathos and "pretty words."
Hi Ben, after reading your post I have somethings to say. For example, when you said that Trump was "presenting the flaws of his opponent Former Secretary Clinton" when in his speech he says "This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness. But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy", I would like to disagree. I would disagree with you because in my opinion, when Trump says that, it sounds more as if he was mocking or insulting her rather than just presenting her flaws. However, I would agree with what you said about Trump using "logos with a slight notion of pathos", because he most certainly does appeal to his audience through the listing of facts that all connect to the audience's emotion.I also do have a question; Do you think Clinton had any valid argument(s) in her speech? and if so, how did she go about making the argument(s) valid? Lastly, by connecting the use of logos and pathos, he definitely does create an argument that is stronger than Clinton's.
ReplyDeleteI see how Trump used Logos in his speech, but i'm not too sure if Ethos was one of his primary appeals. I have to disagree with you when you say the quote you chose represents Hillary Clinton's "Faulty credibility". I believe the words he uses in that quote, such as "death", "destruction", and "weakness" are all meant to make the audience feel a sense of distrust towards Clinton. I understand how you can relate distrust with credibility and ethos, but it's based upon the appeal of emotion. Actually, I believe Clinton appeals to ethos much more than Trump. Just look at the beginning of her speech, she begins by thanking all of those who helped her in her campaign so far and states two very powerful individuals when she says "We heard the man from Hope, Bill Clinton.And the man of Hope, Barack Obama." She is expressing her connections to powerful leaders, building on her credibility. So my question to you is: do you think Hillary Clinton used more of Pathos or Logos in her speech, and why does that make her speech less effective than Trump's?
ReplyDeleteI see how Trump used Logos in his speech, but i'm not too sure if Ethos was one of his primary appeals. I have to disagree with you when you say the quote you chose represents Hillary Clinton's "Faulty credibility". I believe the words he uses in that quote, such as "death", "destruction", and "weakness" are all meant to make the audience feel a sense of distrust towards Clinton. I understand how you can relate distrust with credibility and ethos, but it's based upon the appeal of emotion. Actually, I believe Clinton appeals to ethos much more than Trump. Just look at the beginning of her speech, she begins by thanking all of those who helped her in her campaign so far and states two very powerful individuals when she says "We heard the man from Hope, Bill Clinton.And the man of Hope, Barack Obama." She is expressing her connections to powerful leaders, building on her credibility. So my question to you is: do you think Hillary Clinton used more of Pathos or Logos in her speech, and why does that make her speech less effective than Trump's?
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that ethos and logos were the two major appeals of Donald Trump's speech and that he used them to slight Hillary Clinton and make his presidential plan seem more appealing. When he states "This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness", he is intentionally putting Hillary into a bad light and making himself seem like the more credible candidate. He also uses this statement to take away from Hillary's credibility as Secretary of State, as he points out the chaotic situation she created in the Middle East with ISIS and countries such as Egypt in shambles. In addition, his use of logos in his statistics such as, "Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years", appeal to the logic and sensibility of the average American and again makes him seem like the more credible candidate. My question to you is: should a future presidential candidate follow Hillary's speech template, which relies heavily on pathos and diction, or Trump's speech, which relies heavily on ethos and logos?
ReplyDelete