Purpose: The strong discourse by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia contradicted the direct assault of United States against Iraq's leader Saddam Hussain. It was composed with the purpose:
1) To influence the individuals from the Senate that US was going into a confused and avoidable war
2) To voice concerns to call of the attack of Iraq.
3) To establish discourse with the Senate and
4) To investigate the potential results in future of the war activity of the United States. (ICH)
Claim:
Robert Byrd's discourse out-rightly challenged US Government's choice to strive for a war, and asserted that the:
1) The war is creating harm to US's International relations.
2) The superpower nature of the nation is paraded with presumption, and that …show more content…
The discourse saw the vicinity of Pathos and bathos utilized by Byrd to contend his point, as he initially tempted his audience with inspirational attitudes toward America, and afterward immediately moved them to troubled explanations like 'Today I weep for my country' and 'the image of America has changed. However there is an absence of ethos and logos in the discourse.
Yes the opposing side has likewise been specified here with Mccain discrediting the very base of Byrd's cases and extolling the entire demonstration of US assault, behind the veil of civil justice and social cleansing.
Argument:
Byrd urged both the people and the politicians and people of the United States to abandon the arrogant intentions of the War on Terror and focus on peaceful diplomacy.
He certainly seems to have used the Tomerian style of argumentation here with its 6 elements Claims, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Qualifier and Rebuttal to put forth his claims. He claims that today the image of America as one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper has been shattered with its intention to attack Iraq and backs and Warrants it with the claim: "Why can this president not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?" (Changing
1) To influence the individuals from the Senate that US was going into a confused and avoidable war
2) To voice concerns to call of the attack of Iraq.
3) To establish discourse with the Senate and
4) To investigate the potential results in future of the war activity of the United States. (ICH)
Claim:
Robert Byrd's discourse out-rightly challenged US Government's choice to strive for a war, and asserted that the:
1) The war is creating harm to US's International relations.
2) The superpower nature of the nation is paraded with presumption, and that …show more content…
The discourse saw the vicinity of Pathos and bathos utilized by Byrd to contend his point, as he initially tempted his audience with inspirational attitudes toward America, and afterward immediately moved them to troubled explanations like 'Today I weep for my country' and 'the image of America has changed. However there is an absence of ethos and logos in the discourse.
Yes the opposing side has likewise been specified here with Mccain discrediting the very base of Byrd's cases and extolling the entire demonstration of US assault, behind the veil of civil justice and social cleansing.
Argument:
Byrd urged both the people and the politicians and people of the United States to abandon the arrogant intentions of the War on Terror and focus on peaceful diplomacy.
He certainly seems to have used the Tomerian style of argumentation here with its 6 elements Claims, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Qualifier and Rebuttal to put forth his claims. He claims that today the image of America as one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper has been shattered with its intention to attack Iraq and backs and Warrants it with the claim: "Why can this president not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?" (Changing