Comment On Your Classmate’s Discussion Of His/Her Chosen Wor

Comment on your classmate’s discussion of his/her chosen work

The discussion presents a detailed comparison of two pivotal Senate speeches delivered by Senator Robert Byrd and Senator John McCain regarding the Iraq War in 2003. Your classmate effectively analyzes the rhetorical strategies employed by both speakers, highlighting Byrd’s emotional appeal and ethical considerations and McCain’s emphasis on moral duty and American principles of freedom and democracy. The analysis rightly notes that both speeches are charged with emotion and partisan passion, which adds to their persuasive impact.

I agree with your assessment that Byrd’s speech primarily relies on ethos and emotional appeal, portraying the war as a “war of choice,” and emphasizing shared American values. Conversely, McCain’s speech is framed around the duty to promote freedom, leveraging a Wilsonian perspective aligned with American ideals. Your classmate accurately emphasizes that both speeches, despite their differences, aim to persuade through passionate rhetoric and ethical appeals, fitting within Toulmin and Rogerian argument frameworks. Overall, their analysis convincingly demonstrates how each senator’s rhetorical approach reflects their positions and underlying values concerning the Iraq invasion.

Paper For Above instruction

The speeches of Senators Robert Byrd and John McCain in 2003 exemplify contrasting rhetorical approaches within a charged political context, exemplifying how persuasive strategies reflect underlying values and intentions. Byrd’s speech, delivered just before the invasion of Iraq, is characterized by a visceral emotional appeal and a moral argument framing the war as unnecessary and a “war of choice” (Byrd, 2003). Byrd emphasizes that the decision to invade Iraq lacked sufficient international or factual basis, appealing to ethos and invoking a sense of betrayal of American ideals. His rhetoric underscores the global mistrust generated by unilateral actions taken without broad consensus, which he argues damages America’s moral standing (Byrd, 2003). This speech seeks to persuade the audience through emotional mourning for the country’s tarnished image and moral decline, criticizing the aggressive foreign policy approach and advocating for diplomacy rather than military intervention.

In contrast, McCain’s speech responds with a tone of justified necessity, emphasizing American principles of liberty, democracy, and the moral obligation to liberate oppressed populations. McCain frames the invasion as consistent with the United States’ historical role in defending human rights and combating evil regimes, citing Kosovo and Bosnia as precedents (McCain, 2003). His rhetoric appeals to shared American values and patriotism, asserting that the conflict aims to restore the inalienable rights of the Iraqi people, aligning with Wilsonian ideals of spreading democracy (McCain, 2003). McCain’s speech employs a combination of ethos and pragmatic reasoning, highlighting the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and the importance of American leadership in global freedom. His tone, while acknowledging risks, advocates for the moral imperative to act, asserting that the United States’ reputation is reinforced through its commitment to these ideals.

Both speeches operate within emotionally charged and partisan environments, yet they serve different rhetorical purposes. Byrd’s emotional appeal aims to dissuade military action by emphasizing moral and global repercussions, invoking a sense of betrayal and moral decay. McCain, however, seeks to rally support for action based on American moral virtues and strategic necessity. Despite their differences, both employ ethos, emotional appeals, and strategic framing aligned with their respective positions. Their speeches exemplify how rhetoric is used to navigate complex issues of morality, national identity, and international reputation in times of crisis. This comparative analysis underscores the importance of rhetorical strategy in shaping public opinion and policy debates surrounding war.

References

• Byrd, R. (2003). Today I weep for my country. Information Clearing House. https://informationclearinghouse.info/article4644.htm
• McCain, J. (2003). Response to Senator Byrd’s speech on Iraq. U.S. Senate Archives.
• Driver, H., Gast, N., & Lowman-Thomas, S. (2012). Using the Rogerian method of argumentation. English 102 – Effectiveness in Writing.
• Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.
• Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on arguments. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Burke, K. (1950). Language as symbolic action. University of California Press.
• Herrick, J. A. (2013). The history and theory of rhetoric. Routledge.
• Reed, L. (2010). Rhetoric and persuasion in political speeches. Oxford University Press.
• Vatz, R. E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(3), 154–161.