As the 2016 Presidency Election gets closer, debates are heating up. With chaos erupting within the United States and outside of it with their allies, candidates are using a combination of specific dialogue and empathy towards the events to persuade their audience to elect for them for Presidency. This specific dialogue, for the most part, is what communication scholars would label as rhetoric speaking. According to McGraw-Hill Company, Rhetoric Theory is the available means of persuasion. Speakers use the three proofs to persuade their target audience: logical, emotional, and ethical.
When we asked Dr. McKerrow, ”What have you noticed in the media or in politics that indicates change in regards to your perspective on corporeal rhetoric?” …show more content…
is a rhetoric scholar who has studied and taught at multiple universities. He has covered rhetoric in multiple outlets. My group had an opportunity to interview him over Facetime. We asked him what his description of rhetoric is. His response was “There is no difference between communication and rhetoric, rhetoric is communication and communication is rhetoric.” He proceeded to explain that rhetoric is essentially, the means of persuasion. However, as he explained this, he entails that we all use rhetoric when communicating. We are all trying to persuade someone to feel, believe, or express our interest the way we do. His writings go into further depth on how to configure an effective rhetoric speech while strategies and principles to follow. In 2012, Dr. McKerrow wrote an article on the four principles that format rhetorical democracy. In this article, he explains each stage that is needed when composing and executing a rhetorical speech. The first of the four main principles, “To keep the health of a rhetorical democracy founded on the possibility of dissensus.” He elaborates that getting everyone to agree right away is unlikely and to be prepared for …show more content…
McKerrow writes about is that “Argument’s province, as a sub-set of rhetoric, is to engage others in a manner that may or may not be binding on others or, with evident certainty, respond to the common good.” In our interview we had also asked him, “In terms of political communication, what are some habits that sovereign nations could adopt in order to find solutions to real world problems?” Dr. McKerrow responded, “We don’t talk to ISIS, and ISIS doesn’t talk to us.” He further explained that throughout history it is not how diplomacy works because speaking with the enemy is seen as giving credence to the opposition’s perspective. He states that if we actually had the willingness to communicate with our enemies it could solve global issues. In another article, Corporeality and Culture Rhetoric: A site for rhetoric’s future, Dr. McKerrow delivers insight on rhetoric theory outside of politics. The central question Dr. McKerrow had asked and answered for this article was, “If rhetoric is to re-fashion itself in responding to a culturally diverse world, what kind of theoretical orientation might it find as its “site” from which to appraise
When we asked Dr. McKerrow, ”What have you noticed in the media or in politics that indicates change in regards to your perspective on corporeal rhetoric?” …show more content…
is a rhetoric scholar who has studied and taught at multiple universities. He has covered rhetoric in multiple outlets. My group had an opportunity to interview him over Facetime. We asked him what his description of rhetoric is. His response was “There is no difference between communication and rhetoric, rhetoric is communication and communication is rhetoric.” He proceeded to explain that rhetoric is essentially, the means of persuasion. However, as he explained this, he entails that we all use rhetoric when communicating. We are all trying to persuade someone to feel, believe, or express our interest the way we do. His writings go into further depth on how to configure an effective rhetoric speech while strategies and principles to follow. In 2012, Dr. McKerrow wrote an article on the four principles that format rhetorical democracy. In this article, he explains each stage that is needed when composing and executing a rhetorical speech. The first of the four main principles, “To keep the health of a rhetorical democracy founded on the possibility of dissensus.” He elaborates that getting everyone to agree right away is unlikely and to be prepared for …show more content…
McKerrow writes about is that “Argument’s province, as a sub-set of rhetoric, is to engage others in a manner that may or may not be binding on others or, with evident certainty, respond to the common good.” In our interview we had also asked him, “In terms of political communication, what are some habits that sovereign nations could adopt in order to find solutions to real world problems?” Dr. McKerrow responded, “We don’t talk to ISIS, and ISIS doesn’t talk to us.” He further explained that throughout history it is not how diplomacy works because speaking with the enemy is seen as giving credence to the opposition’s perspective. He states that if we actually had the willingness to communicate with our enemies it could solve global issues. In another article, Corporeality and Culture Rhetoric: A site for rhetoric’s future, Dr. McKerrow delivers insight on rhetoric theory outside of politics. The central question Dr. McKerrow had asked and answered for this article was, “If rhetoric is to re-fashion itself in responding to a culturally diverse world, what kind of theoretical orientation might it find as its “site” from which to appraise