Bias, Rhetoricaldevices and Argumentation

After listening to the mp3 debate I came to a conclusion that this speaker who says his name is Charles Liberal acts as if the election is a joke. After the firs twenty seconds the speaker started to keep his audience in laughter. The speaker spoke against Mr. Bush W. Getty numerous times with one thing saying he cannot do his profession. The speaker should not make assumptions or accusing another party without knowing 100% what he/she is saying. It was stated that Getty is dishonest and several other things. The speaker gave the dialogue in a formal tone but not in a serious comportment, as it should have been addressed for the intention of the debate. The speaker was very bias by saying he was going to have Mr. Getty arrested after captivating the debate. The speaker never gave the specific reason on why he wanted to have Getty arrested during his speech. This would have probably given himself a better chance in the election. When you say something like that about your opponent or addressed to your opponent you are acting like a child that is in a mans’/woman’s’ body. The speaker gave many fallacies by saying what he was going to do rather what he wants to do. I know myself that when a speaker says I am going to change this or that it will not happen unless the house passes the bill for whatever it is for. By any individual promising that it will be done is dishonest. When Liberal said that Getty is dishonest he should have been speaking of himself also since he was making promises that he knows that he could possibly would not and cannot keep. With the speaker giving the speech in the manner that he did he gave several rhetorical words by saying that his opponent cannot do any of the things that he promises but he can. The speakers’ speech was very effective for his voters who attended the speech. The only way the speaker got the attention was turning the speech into a circus. I think that the way the speaker gave his speech gave him the edge with the joking...