Liz Yount, Harvard-Westlake school, California
Our coaches always tell us that when answering a question from an opponent during a debate, the answer must always accomplish two things. First, it must be offensive; answering a question with a defensive talking point shows fear of confrontation and a lack of perceptual dominance. Second, the response must be short and sweet; if there is a yes or no question, give it a yes or no answer. Hillary Clinton did a splendid job of this during the debate. She gave multiple solid, powerful noes to questions she disagreed with and then followed it up with a laser-precise explanation of her reasoning.
Similarly, it seemed as if every other sentence Bernie Sanders said was accompanied by statistics and in-depth analysis. A solid arsenal of evidence on hand during a debate is crucial, since statistics are almost always offensive and can be significantly persuasive. When asked if black lives matter, he responded by simply saying “black lives matter”. Bernie was wildly successful here because he cut straight to the point and used a well-known, attention-grabbing phrase to send his message home.
Martin O’Malley had no command over the room, since his eyes wandered during every speech and his words lacked conviction. When Jim Webb contributed, his hand gestures were distracting, and Lincoln Chafee’s nebulous articulation make it difficult to discern between talking points and argumentation.
While they all delivered strong statements during their closing remarks, Clinton’s big-picture narrative presented a very clear and compelling image of her America. Her stylistic edge combined with fearless, precise responses convinced me she won the debate.
Candidate grades:
- Clinton: A-
- Sanders: B+
- O’Malley: B-
- Webb: C
- Chafee: D
Julia Lauer, Bronx high school of science, New York
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders maintained their conversational yet confident tones throughout. As a debater, I understand the importance of sounding conversational – especially in debates centered on a missing middle class, appealing to the average American, and sympathizing with educational gaps.
Right from the get-go, Sanders’ accent, humor (e.g. “The secretary is right … I’m tired of hearing about her damn emails”) and frank demeanor set him apart from the group. Clinton’s open hand gestures, expressive eye contact and constant smile made her seem like an approachable person, not a well-worn politician. Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb, however, were not so relatable. Between O’Malley’s overemphasis on pathos over policy, Chafee’s uncomfortable speaking style and Webb’s allusions to murdering a man, it was difficult to feel a close personal connection to any of these three candidates.
Respect is imperative in discourse, whether in a debate round or a presidential debate. Before refuting your opponent’s opinion, it’s important to concede to some aspect of his or her idea and then respectfully disagree. Sanders and O’Malley demonstrated a clear sense of respect for their running mates. Webb, on the other hand, was disrespectful of Anderson Cooper. Though it’s understandable to be frustrated by the lack of attention given to him, he spent too much time complaining. This lack of respect made him appear petulant.
Candidate grades:
- Hillary Clinton: A
- Bernie Sanders: A-
- Martin O’Malley: B
- Lincoln Chafee: B-
- Jim Webb: D
Joshua May, United World college, New Mexico
The first Democratic debate showcased some of the best and worst of debating technique and style.
Despite the broad range of topics presented, the candidates kept leaning on the same ideas. For Bernie Sanders, it was Wall Street; for Martin O’Malley, his carbon plan; and for Jim Webb, an almost Trump-like level of fascination with China.
In debate it is vital to have multiple arguments so that the case applies directly to a variety of situations, but candidates repeatedly resorted to their particular niche or pet issue regardless of the subject at hand. Take Sanders, for example, who continually made the broad implication that the only way to fight climate change was to take money out of the companies who profit from it. It is a start, but presidential candidates should have more tailored arguments.
While there was room to improve on expansion and explanation of arguments, the candidates did some things remarkably well. They were particularly effective in choosing the issues to focus on in the debate. I loved Sanders’ line “American people are tired of hearing about your damn emails” and Hillary Clinton’s smiling “no” in response to Lincoln Chafee’s criticism of her credibility because of the emails. Clinton also used a lot of what we call “turns” in debate, where she took things said against her and turned them to her advantage. Her response to the charge that she is weak on Wall Street, saying her plan is tougher than just reinstating Glass-Steagall, was a perfect example of a rhetorical turn that I would welcome in any of my debate teams.
Candidate grades:
- Hillary Clinton: A
- Bernie Sanders: B-
- Martin O’Malley: C+
- Jim Webb: D+
- Lincoln Chafee: D
0 comments:
Post a Comment