Rhetoric in Action

Taking a brief break from the analysis of happiness, our school recently had what we informally called a  "show-off" period, featuring the various political candidates running in the current election. Earlier in the year we learned that the key to any successful presentation (literary work or in general anything aimed to prove a point) is the use of Ethos, Logos and Pathos.

Quickly, any effective argument is all about targeting your opponent and the above three elements of rhetoric accomplish precisely that. First is Ethos, which is used to demonstrate to the audience the character of the speaker. It appeals to the audience so they are aware the presenter knows precisely what he is talking about and therefore becomes willing to trust their argument. Next up is Logos. This is plainly and simply a presentation of the facts with evidence to prove the point. The last weapon of rhetoric is Pathos. This is a part of the argument targeting the audience emotionally to convey their argument. Often in the form of some sort of story or analogy, but not necessarily.

Why use a fancy photoshop program when you can use Paint?

This image best describes the elements of rhetoric (think in terms of a debate). Ethos targets the heart of the opponent by revealing the character of the speaker. Logos attacks the head (i.e. logic) utilizing supported evidence and Pathos goes straight to the gonads (attacking the pride of the individual through an appeal to the emotions). An effective master of rhetoric knows precisely when he/she is using any of these elements and often in debate it's not the better point that wins, but the one that is argued most effectively.

"That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong." - Nick Naylor

Anyways, it was interesting to analyze several presenters back-to-back, not only judging their effectiveness personally, but also seeing the crowd's reaction and even responses to one another.

The Libertarian representative you could tell was a little inexperienced, which isn't her fault, but though her introductory and conclusions were strong in my opinion, as people pointed out, it was pretty much read from paper. When it came to student questions she seemed a little uncertain. Issues quite pertinent to us as students (i.e. lowering cost of college/university) she didn't seem prepared for, when she likely could have voiced her position a little better.

Personally, I believe the Liberal Party was one of the best represented. He was bold, straight to the point and confident, although perhaps a tad impersonal. Interestingly enough, what Baker pointed out was he had an odd mannerism to finish a number of negative statements with "quite honestly". Exp. "The cost of university is just going to increase, quite honestly." He used it as if the suffix created by using those two words would soften the blow of any negative statement he put forth. I'm a little embarrassed to say that I didn't catch on to it because details are crucial when analyzing any argument.

The Green Party was interesting by opening with a clear use of Pathos in his "Trying to find a rhinoceros" story. It was a little hard to follow, but he managed to tie it back to his party by relating it to the environment issues also being large, but often remain unseen (in a nutshell). He had a great intro. by choosing to stand because it was different and felt much more personal. On the other hand his "green initiative" (arguably the whole aim of his party) fell largely on deaf ears as all of the parties mentioned some form of green movement. Also, this is just my personal opinion, but between talks he just seemed bored, which took a lot away from his position.

Bev Oda... yeah. Experienced politician no doubt, but she has the ability to talk a great deal without really saying anything. I mean she said the Conservative Party had many specific ideas to create change, however only mentioned two. Maybe it's just me, but whenever she said that I thought "Alright... well what are they?" As for the "not" issue, part of me wishes it wasn't asked because it ate up valuable question time, but at the same time I'm glad that it raised awareness for anyone who didn't know what happened.

At least it wasn't in crayon

I'm not going to get into it in detail. Her answer was nothing unexpected and, as the NDP representative pointed out, it was likely the product of several months spinning the issue.

The NDP were fairly well represented although perhaps appearing slightly less confident and professional than their Conservative and Liberal counterparts.

Though these talks are great for comparing the ideals of the various parties, but I don't believe that a demonstration like this is what one person should base their vote completely upon. I had the opportunity to speak to both the NDP and Liberal representatives on matters I was perplexed with and surprisingly enough the NDP rep. was quite knowledgeable, while the Liberal rep. was much more personal (despite stating the contrary to both above). In the end, this demonstration should merely spark an interest in certain parties so one may further investigate their respected platforms. One person's word isn't enough to critique an entire political party for the worse or even for the better.

Yes, it is crucial for anyone with the right to vote to make use of it. I'm a firm believer that if you willingly choose not to be a part of the political process you withdraw all right to complain about it. At the same time, your decision shouldn't be the product of "eenie meanie minie mo", but by making an informed decision about who should truly be running our country. A random vote is as useless as a blank one.

Never stop questioning.