Supreme Court Persuasive Essay

Right at the beginning of the third debate there is a question about the Supreme Court asked by moderator Chris Wallace. Hillary responds by using reasoned persuasion by bringing up movements and cases close to a lot of people’s hearts. This shows reasoned persuasion because she says that her supreme court will be on the side of these movements and be better than it is now. Then once Clinton finishes her response Trump begins his counter. He begins his counter by immediately attacking a Supreme Court justice in Ruth Ginsburg. This shows manipulative persuasion because he is trying to get people to side with him because she made some uncalled for accusations toward him. This is manipulative because he is using unethical actions to persuade supporters to like him more than the competition.
Skipping over the second amendment part of the debate Chris Wallace then brings up abortions and Roe v. Wade which incites a lot of pathos from both candidates. Trump begins his response by saying he is going to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. Trump thinks he is going to win and there is no way that Hillary will win. In his words there will be pro-life justices appointed to the Supreme Court. This means that abortion will be a huge …show more content…
The fallacy takes place when out of nowhere he brings up NAFTA which has nothing to do with immigration. This presenting distracting evidence to get the audience thinking about a bad trade deal that happened during Bill Clintons Administration that has nothing to do with the question at hand. Hillary has a straw man fallacy when she brings Russia into her hacked emails. Chris Wallace asks her to answer a questions about open boarders that was brought because she talked about the subject in her deleted emails. She then starts talking about Russian hackers that have nothing to do with the question at hand because she is trying to distract the