Essay On Presidential Debate

Throughout the second presidential debate of 2016, both candidates made it very clear that a good president is made by their character. In the debate, they spend their time arguing, but what they do agree on is the character of a president, determines their greatness. While Trump and Clinton are answering questions from the public, they use fallacies and rhetorical strategies making lots of their points, not as strong. While they are debating though, they always come back to their insults and what makes up a good president, which in their minds is one’s character. At one point of the debate a question is asked from the crowd member: Brock; “Knowing that educators assign viewing the presidential debates as students’ homework, do you feel you are modelling appropriate and positive

And we are going to respect one another, lift each other up” (Clinton). Right from the beginning of her answer, she veers off in a different direction. The definition of red herring is: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. Instead of giving an affirmative or negative response she starts to talk patriotism. Donald Trump, too veers off from the original question, he even starts by agreeing with Hillary Clinton, who didn’t in fact answer the question correctly. Donald Trump, talks about patriotism briefly, like clinton, and then; “And my whole concept was to make America great again. When I watch the deals being made. When I watch what's happening with some horrible things like Obamacare where your health insurance and health care is going up by numbers that are astronomical: 68%, 59%, 71%” (Trump), talking about the bad care the previous president. This is also red herring, Trump should have gave an affirmative or negative answer as well, and then explained that, but instead they don’t talk about whether or not “they are modeling appropriate and positive behavior for