1. One of the main arguments of the debate was overall the definition of the presidential campaign. The opposition really laid into the idea that the campaign was about winning, that it wasn’t focusing on the end goal of presidency, but instead the process of getting to that point should be emphasized with emotion and drama. That the campaign is about winning and process getting their not about the actual presidency. The proposition countered with that the result of the election shouldn’t be forgotten and that the character and morality that is demonstrated in the campaign is an indicator of their presidency. They debated heavily on the emotion of the public that comes into play when voting especially in the example of the Holocaust was brought …show more content…
Both sides continuously were quoting from the sophist and Aristotelean readings especially Maggie from the proposition, she really had a lot to say and back up a lot it with quotes and references. I didn’t catch the exact quote from Maggie, but she mentioned that sophists tell us what we want to hear and she then related it to attack ads that are used during campaigns which I thought was beneficial to her sides overall point. If I had to critique, I would say I wish I saw more debate with the quotes being the center of discussion rather than an example. I felt that the quotes where used as more of evidence, which is completely fair and definitely overall helpful to prove points, but I wonder if they could’ve been a center of discussion such as Hitler example and the Pledge of the Allegiance example were.
]
5.
Overall, I thought all of debaters did a really good job, but I thought Ellerie Baer from the opposition really did an excellent job. She really laid out that the campaign is about winning not the presidency and that “common good” is a subjective thought. Overall, her point that campaigns are meant to convince ideally not morally was really influential to