Rhtorical analysis of the debates between United States presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Kolesarić, Marina. (2018). Rhtorical analysis of the debates between United States presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Diploma Thesis. Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu, Department of Phonetics. [mentor Kišiček, Gabrijela].

Preview

PDF (Croatian) Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Although the presidential campaign in the United States begins two years before the election, the final three debates of the two elected candidates represent its highlight. This paper analyzes exactly these three debates in the US presidential election in 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Expected results were the usage of political claims, discrediting of the candidates, focusing on their ethos and the usage of argumentation fallacies. The aim of the analysis of the paper was to compare the features of the candidates„ political discourse and to see if there are differences between them. The comparison of the rhetorical practices of the presidential candidates showed differences in the usage of the types of claims and ethos building strategies and pointed out on the usage of the same types of argumentation fallacies in different ratios. The analysis led to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton„s argumentation was better since she was using the preliminary argumentation, followed by the supporting political claims with her own problem solving, unlike the arguments of Donald Trump, which were marked by numerous Red Herring and ad hominem argumentation fallacies, populist rhetoric and bad formulation and weak support of the political claims.

Actions (login required)

View Item