A few weeks ago in class, Mrs. Logan said that the key to winning a debate is how one chooses to frame the question. This technique is evident as the presidential candidates seek to justify their stances on controversial issues such as taxes.
Senator Barack Obama has been criticized for taking a socialistic approach to his tax policy. Some consider Obama's plan of "redistributing the wealth" by placing higher taxes on the wealthy to compensate for lower/middle class families, as something closely simulating communism. This is how conservatives frame the issue of taxes: by comparing the opposing candidate's policy to a movement that is nationally recognized as a failure. Thus, the only "right" response seems to be fear of the liberal's plan, and support of the republican's.
However, Obama rebuts McCain's claim by bringing morality into the issue. He asserts that where he comes from, his policy is known as fairness. This frames the same issue in a different light, and thus those persuaded by his argument can conclude that Obama's policy is the only "right" choice for it is the virtuous thing to do.
Evidently, one claim can be supported with two very different warrants. Both arguments are convincing within the context of how they are framed. It will be very interesting to see tomorrow night which version of the argument the American people choose to believe.
1 comment:
Jaqueline, great post! It's so interesting that the art of argument is really won by the person who manages to convince everyone that their question is more worth arguing. Any view can seem like the right answer depending on what the question is! It really skews my view on the whole presidential campaign, with a new appreciation for argument as well.
Post a Comment