Presidential Debate Analysis

Let it be known that this analysis does not represent my personal opinion on who "my candidate" is. To be fairly honest, it was almost impossible for me to look at this debate, or the election for that manner, in a detached, objective way. This blog will be the best attempt that I can muster to look at this from a strictly analytical view-point.


From the start, it becomes clear that Hillary Clinton well spoken, she expresses her ideas clearly and concisely. She was able to answer the questions brought to her with ease, whether you agreed with her or not, she was able to get her answers and polices out there clearly. This was not so much the case with Donald Trump, it seemed his "answers" went in circles. He spent more of his time slightly avoiding the questions, or attacking Hillary on her policies relating to that question. He, to his credit, have strong, valid opinions about our trade relations and NATO relations. His policies on the latter, however, made him seem uninformed  To Hillary's discredit she does resort to direct insults calling Mr. Trump a racist and unstable. Both of the candidates bearing was questionable, Hillary didn't bother suppressing her chuckles, or her amusement at Donald's comments; at the same time Donald interrupted and interjected while Hillary was speaking on multiple occasions. Both candidates showed varying degrees of professionalism, in my opinion, Donald Trump more so.

Aside from those issues, looking closer we can actually find bias in the very questions being asked, to how and how they were asked. I found this online, and although it is not a direct reflection of my opinion on the subject matter, it is very hard to dispute what is shown News Article, In depth Analysis (Not mine). Lester Holt avoided asking any direct questions about any scandals or points of interest associated with Hillary Clinton. Whenever they were brought up, he would ask, ". . . do you want to respond to that" rather then asking her directly. Even most of his transitions to Hilary was simply stating her title to transition, rather then a refocused question like in Donald Trump's case.

Looking back at this debate, even though Hillary was objectively better spoken, both of the candidates did poorly. Focus on the questions without mud flinging stopped about half way through, at which point the debate became a debacle. The combination of the biased moderator, Mr. Trumps inability to speak clearly, and avoid slandering and Hillary's lack of bearing really lowered the quality of the debate as a whole.

Sweatshop Rhetorical Analysis

It is often easy to forget the connection between counterfeiting and sweatshops, especially in today's day and age, when sweatshops aren't as prevalent as they used to be. That does not mean, however,  they no longer exist  as evidenced in the article "Counterfeiting: Many Risks and Many Victims" by Daniel Bukszpan (can be found at http://www.cnbc.com/id/38229835 ). The article not only exposes the rising demand for counterfeit goods, but also how that ties in directly with the sweatshop epidemic. In his article, he has three main talking points, the illegal labor used to produce these goods and the risks/dangers to consumers.

He starts his first point by describing the personal experience of Dana Thomas, who witnessed the atrocities personally, "I remember walking into an assembly plant in Thailand a couple of years ago and seeing six or seven little children, all under 10 years old, sitting on the floor assembling counterfeit leather handbags. The owners had broken the children's legs and tied the lower leg to the thigh so the bones wouldn't mend. They did it because the children said they wanted to go outside and play." (Dana Thomas, Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster) This is probably his most powerful piece of evidence in his story, and it works on two fronts.

One: It gives us an image of what modern day sweatshops can look like, even how cruel they can be

Two: It plays at our heart strings, and our sense moral outrage, the fact that this can happen in our day and age is deeply disturbing.

To top it all off, "that is just the normal standard for minor exploitation in today's sweat shops." (Daniel Bukszpan) That statement helps to establish the idea of places even worse than the one described, a scary though if you ask me.

Most likely one of the better sweatshops, according to Daniel Bukszpan
http://poster.4teachers.org/view/poster.php?poster_id=424543

Addressing his second point, Daniel refers to a place in NYC called  "Counterfeit alley", were all kinds of shops, "selling anything from DVD's to jewelry"  are set up in full public view. In these shops a customer can potentially "get locked in the store, forcing them to make a purchase." (Daniel Bukszpan). "According to John Feinblatt, New York City's criminal justice coordinator, this is not just a consumer protection issue, but also a public safety issue. “These buildings violate every code in the book, the exit signs are obliterated, or the fire exits are locked or blocked by boxes of merchandise. They’re firetraps. By going to these shops, potential buyers are putting their lives at risk, and possibly in the hands of the people in charge of the store, making a valid argument as to why exactly counterfeit goods can be a danger to potential buyers.

A shop located in "Counterfeit alley"
http://www.purseblog.com/news/the-counterfeit-bag-market-is-being-overtaken-by-fake-contemporary-bags/

 Even if a buyer tries to avoid buying form counterfeit peddlers, he/she is still vulnerable to buying fake goods. According to Susan Fordham, University Law professor, "The shopper who would never have considered buying from the guy on the corner whispering, 'Pssst! Want to buy a watch?' can easily be fooled by a website that looks genuine but isn't, . . .". The buyer may think they are buying the "real" product for less, but it really is almost impossible;e to tell online. This is a valid point as the increasing use of the internet for consumer trade coupled with the constant search for the lower cost of a product helps to create a environment in which people can take advantage of consumers online.

Overall, this article can really help wake up people that thought buying counterfeit was a harmless action. By showing the connection between Sweatshop labor and the industry, we are able to see that our demand on counterfeit products increases the need for these sweatshops to continue. "According to the International Chamber of Commerce, it accounts for 5 to 7 percent of all global trade." (Daniel Bukszpan). Being wary of your purchases and trying not to buy fake items may not stop this trade altogether, but at the very least, it will slow down this global monster.

Critical Response to a Visual Argument

Visual arguments have the potential to captivate its audience, seeing as though photos are worth a thousand words. Political cartoons, powerful photographs (such as the falling man, or the the last Jew in Vinnitsa) even well thought out warning adverts grab our attention, shock us, make us think, laugh and maybe even cry, somethings words usually lack the power to do. That doesn't mean that there aren't any bad visual arguments out there, for example, a image originating from the website, Mediaviolence.org*; found in our textbook, " Practical Argument" on page 84. ( I tried to find this image online, but had no luck, it really shows how unremarkable and forgettable this image is. Before we look at what exactly this image does wrong, it is important to recognize the argument of this image, the audience it is aimed towards , and the agenda of the people pushing it.

The image, visually, is a simple one. A young boy, seemingly about 11 years old is deeply engrossed by the video game he is playing. He is sitting on a blue couch that is empty on his right side (a semi-important detail), and the rest of the frame is relatively simple with a gray background that is out of focus. Above the empty spot on the couch the there is a small list, showing the top 5 games in 2011 according to CNBC. We, as the audience are supposed to infer that the child is playing any one of these games. The image's statement being that these violent games, are having a hypnotizing effect on our children all around the world, keeping their attention on the violence in the game.  This is a very clear-and-cut case of playing to our emotions. There is an attempt to support their claim with a logical argument, but it will be shown why it fails to hold up against any scrutiny. The previously mentioned detail empty hints to the missing parent that should be there with their child, keeping an eye on them. This also leads into the next point of the visual argument, the audience. This image was  created to scare/shock parents that limit the control over their children's entertainment. The empty place on the couch is a position they will put themselves into metaphorically, encouraging them to reflect on how they are looking over the media their children interact with.

Now, its time to discuss how this visual argument falls short, and can be taken apart with only a little research. Lets start by analyzing the visual itself, the image of the boy on the couch playing the video game. It feels, at least in my opinion, that there was little effort or thought put into it. It feels like a stock image taken from the nooks and crannies of the internet. To be honest, I doubt that the boy being on a couch by himself was intentional, by the "designers" of this argument, to symbolize the missing parents  in the child's life. The only part that I suspected they put in, the small list, isn't even accurate. According to meta gamer,(http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all/filtered?year_selected=2011 ) the most reliable source of game rankings, none of the games mentioned made the top five. Sourcing a out of touch news site for information on video games is like asking a 90 year old what their favorite model of computer is, it would be rare if they could tell one apart from the other. The games mentioned on the list, except for Deus Ex 3, did mediocre at best, were not overly violent to  be controversial,  and fell out of memory within a month or two. Dues Ex 3's focus isn't even on violence ( although there are elements of violence and action). The focus is on its story driven narrative, about humanity struggling with class divides and how future technology fits into this struggle.  One of the top 5 best games to come out that year was a puzzle based game called Portal 2**, with colorful, interesting characters, an engaging struggle, and heavy emphasis on thinking outside the box and careful examination of the environment to escape the facility that you are trapped in. Provided are some of the trailers showcasing, the environments, characters and concepts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWTqylt3JQQ. 

Over all, other then being misleading, this argument is not fair to its audience. The average parent that doesn't know anything about video games would not have the knowledge to do the small amount of research I did to debunk the list and its source. It also doesn't account for the different genre, narratives and focus of different games they aren't all the same cut and dry shooter game with an emphasis on killing. At most, this image would succeed in tricking and misleading parents into  thinking that the video game media focuses mostly on violence, as that inaccurate top five list appears to show.  

*I could not, for the love of me, find this picture on the website, or on google. Goes to show how stock it is huh?

** I would highly recommend both installments of this game, they are short, fun and challenging. They are both funny, engaging games and can be found for very cheap together at this point. http://store.steampowered.com/bundle/234/