http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/whoppers-bayonets-zingers-final-presidential-debate/story?id=17537856#.UIcwHWh8zzI
Considering each of the presidential debates, it is easy to view that Gov. Romney and President Obama use several different tactics in order to win arguments and gain support throughout the debate. Majority of the polls clearly show Romney did much better than Obama due to his aggressive and overly confident persona. President Barack Obama found it difficult to match Romney's type of energy and momentum causing him to look less confident and sure of himself in front of Romney. This technique of aggression seemed to work very well for Romney, which was later followed by President Obama. In the following debate, the results were more positive towards Obama according to CNN, a fairly liberal and unbiased source of news. It is clear from watching the debate that Obama was significantly more aggressive than Romney, making him seem more confident and sure of his policies. Obama's aggressive way of debating, put Romney in a defense mode rather than offense which was beneficial to Obama. President Obama also constantly pointed out flaws in Romney's plan which seemed to work very well for him because Romney was often proven wrong thus unable to defend his position. For the last and the final most debate, Romney and Obama both again followed different strategies to stay on the top. Romney stayed calm throughout the debate because he didn't want to look rude or act too defensive while Obama continued being his aggressive self while debating. Both these strategies worked well, but often times during the debate Romney in order to not get to aggressive agreed with Obama's accusations which gave Obama a lot more offense. Obama indirectly made fun of Romney for his lack of knowledge, which Romney was incapable of defending making Obama look more credible in front of Romney. Do you agree with the tactic of aggression? Does it work better for Obama or Romney and why so? Does the aggressive way of debating balance out with the calm approach or does it overweigh it? The votes could go either way considering that both presidents had tactics that worked well in certain cases while not the others.
Considering each of the presidential debates, it is easy to view that Gov. Romney and President Obama use several different tactics in order to win arguments and gain support throughout the debate. Majority of the polls clearly show Romney did much better than Obama due to his aggressive and overly confident persona. President Barack Obama found it difficult to match Romney's type of energy and momentum causing him to look less confident and sure of himself in front of Romney. This technique of aggression seemed to work very well for Romney, which was later followed by President Obama. In the following debate, the results were more positive towards Obama according to CNN, a fairly liberal and unbiased source of news. It is clear from watching the debate that Obama was significantly more aggressive than Romney, making him seem more confident and sure of his policies. Obama's aggressive way of debating, put Romney in a defense mode rather than offense which was beneficial to Obama. President Obama also constantly pointed out flaws in Romney's plan which seemed to work very well for him because Romney was often proven wrong thus unable to defend his position. For the last and the final most debate, Romney and Obama both again followed different strategies to stay on the top. Romney stayed calm throughout the debate because he didn't want to look rude or act too defensive while Obama continued being his aggressive self while debating. Both these strategies worked well, but often times during the debate Romney in order to not get to aggressive agreed with Obama's accusations which gave Obama a lot more offense. Obama indirectly made fun of Romney for his lack of knowledge, which Romney was incapable of defending making Obama look more credible in front of Romney. Do you agree with the tactic of aggression? Does it work better for Obama or Romney and why so? Does the aggressive way of debating balance out with the calm approach or does it overweigh it? The votes could go either way considering that both presidents had tactics that worked well in certain cases while not the others.
http://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-laughs-ryan-debate-2012-10
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree with you. I agree with the fact that being aggressive has proven to be very powerful in the recent debates, and in general the person who was more aggressive and didn’t make any large mistakes seemed to come out on top. There was a very interesting example of this in the vice presidential debate, Biden was so aggressive that he seemed at times to be very cocky and this did not come across well. This is interesting because it shows that the candidates need to find the happy medium between being extremely aggressive and too passive. I however disagree with the fact that Obama had a clear advantage in the second debate. I tend to be more Democratic for many reasons but there is no denying that Romney is a very good speaker and is also charismatic. Overall I think that aggression, like all things is only good in moderation and after Obama stepped up his game from the debate the other two have been a lot closer.