The second presidential debate from last Sunday was far more intense than the first one. This time, both of the Candidates were allowed to walk on the stage, which added more factors to the debate including body language, changing position on stage, and interaction with the audience.
Both of the candidates was far more aggressive than the last time. They utilized a lot of ad hominem fallacy, attacking each other about their personal life instead of discussing the policies they are about to apply if they were elected president. Hillary Clinton once again said that Donald Trump "lives in an alternative reality", while Donald Trumps attacks her for deleting her emails. The application of ad hominem fallacy is a sword of Damocles -- by using it, the candidates put both of their own opinions in potential danger. While they attacked each others personalities and moralities, they were not really pointing out the flaws in their opponents' ideologies. As a result, the audience would not be capable of understanding what is they advantages of their own methods. Moreover, making the audience believe that their opponents were bad is not going to cause much effective difference: the candidates probably did not realize that one do not to be morally flawless to be a good president. According to the Prince by Machiavelli, a good ruler sometimes have to neglect the disciplines of morality in order to rule the country in a better way. Ad hominem is a very bad strategies, which utilized a lot by both candidates.
Another fallacy which was employed by both candidates was avoiding the questions. For more than once both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tried to dodge the questions, coming up with somethings which sound similarly nature or make sense in someway, but are not logically correct. For example, when they were asked to give an opinion on what is good on the other candidate, Hillary Clinton went directly to talk about her appreciation to Donald Trump’s daughter — which is completely irrelevant to what a person Trump is. (Or may be it has a little bit to do with this because this indicates that Trump is a good father, but once again being a good father has nothing to do with being a good president.) Consequently, Clinton “wittily” dodged the question without pointing out any of Donald Trumps strength. However, what is not so witty is that she did not realize is that she dodged the question so obvious that it only took credibility down of her. Because she essentially refused to regard her opponent’s advantages seriously, the voters probably will not trust her judgement and capability as a president any more. On the other hand, Donald Trump, when he was asked the same question of what his opponent’s advantage was, he said that Hillary Clinton never gave up and fight for the things that she believe in. This might not be the perfect answer, but at least is over surpassed what was done by Hillary Clinton.
A good thing, if I have to admit, did by both candidates is that they were both concentrated and both responded adeptly and confidently. On stage, they appear like leaders. Even if they fail to be elected president, they will still be leaders in their own field with the quality of confidence and assertiveness they possess.
No comments:
Post a Comment