Analysis of Trump v. Clinton Debate on Gun Control

 Analysis  of  Trump  v.  Clinton  debate  on  Gun  Control     During  this  year's  Third  Presidential  Debate,  Chris  Wallace  of  Fox  News  opened  up  a  discussion  about   the  issue  of  gun  control  in the United States.  The candidate's views on gun control  was one of the top   voted  questions  for  the  debate,  and  so  the  discussion  was  opened  up  for  both  Donald  Trump  and  Hillary   Clinton  to  make  a  clear  and  final  clarification  of  their  views  and  suggest  policies  that  they  would  or   would  not  enact.  Despite  the  framing  of  the  questions  within  the  debate,  the  nature  of  the  topic,  and   Trump's  lack  of  debate  experience,  Clinton  delivered  a  strong  argument  by  employing  strong  rhetorical   techniques.  The  Democratic candidate won the debate due to her ability to re-­‐open  stases,  make  strong   appeals  to  pathos,  and  construct  backed  up  claims  using  Toulmin's  structure,  resulting  in  a  clear   presentation  of  values  and  policies  on  the  issue  of  gun  control.  Unfortunately,  despite  her  expert  use  of   rhetorical  tools,  the  debate  fails  to  work  as  a  whole,  as  opportunities  for  clash  are  missed  and  potential   arguments  dismissed  by  both  the  Moderator  and  the  Republican  Candidate.   The  debate  begins  with  a  question  to  Clinton  about  her  position  o the  second  amendment  and  the   Supreme  Court's  application  of  it.  The  Moderator  (Wallace)  questions  her  views  by  contrasting  two   quotes,  one  said  by  Clinton  last  year,  "the  Supreme  Court  is  wrong  on  the  2nd  amendment",  and  the   other  by  late  republican  Supreme  Court  justice  Scalia,  in  which  he  said  that  the  court  ruled  that  there   was  a  constitutional  right  to  bear  arms,  but  a  right  that  is  reasonably  limited.  After  presenting  both   quotes,  Wallace  asks  the  question,  "what's  wrong  with  that?".  This question is based in the stasis of   value,  as  it  requires  Clinton  to  state  her  position  and  clarify  her  opinion  on  whether  the  supreme  court   was  correct  in  their  decision.  Within  a  debate,  it  is  useful  to  work  through  the  five  stases:  fact,   definition,  value,  policy  and  procedure;  as  it  help  describe  the  logic  inherent  in  the  development  of  an   argument  (Fahnestock,  Secor  1988). The  way  the  question  is  phrased,  however,  highlights  the  first   hurdle  Clinton  must  overcome.  Wallace  frames  the  questions  in  a  negative  light  which  doubts  Clinton's   views  and  requires  her  to  defend  her  position.  Instead  of  asking  a  more  neutral  question  such  as,  "do   you  still  hold  this  opinion?",  or  even  "why  are  you  right?",  the  Moderator's  question  requires  Clinton  to   explain  herself  before  building  on  her  position,  putting  her  a  step  back  in  the  debate.     To  move  the  debate  back  towards  a  positive  light,  and  present  her  values  in  her  own  words,  Clinton   answers  in  three  strategical  stages:  She  defines  her  position  of  the  issue  of  gun  control,    states  the   reason  for  policies  and  what  they  should  be,  and  clarifies  her  stance  on  the  Supreme  Court  decision.  She   must  re-­‐open  the  stasis  of  value,  and  close  it  before  moving  onto  the  stasis  of  policy,  to  ensure  the   audience  is  happy  with  her  logic.     Clinton  is  clear  when  defining  her  position  within  the  stasis  of  value.  She  states  "I  support  the  second   amendment"  and  makes  an  argument  from  the  position-­‐to-­‐know  argument  scheme  to  back  this  up.   Clinton  does  this  by  providing  her  history  of  living in Arkansas and representing Upstate New York as an   example  to  show  that  she  "understand[s]  and  respect[s]  the  tradition  of  gun  ownership".  By  providing   an  example  of  where  she's  lived,  she  shows  herself  as  being  in  a  position  to  know  about  the  gun  issues,   and  can  therefore  provide  an  opinion  that  can  be  believed  by  the  audience.     She  uses  this  same  background  and  position  to  know  to  introduce  her  belief  in  "reasonable  regulations".   Clinton  uses  the  statistic  of  33,000  annual  deaths  due  to  guns  to  strengthen  her  suggestion  of  policies,   which  she  reads  through  briefly,  as  she  wants  to  focus  on  the  reason  for  policies  rather  than  their  exact   1 nature.  Never  the  less,  her  policies  (comprehensive  background  checks,  closing  the  online  loophole  and   closing  the  gun  show  loophole)  are  clear  and  well  defined  in  an  attempt  to  close  the  stasis  of  policy.     To  counter  the  Moderators  negatively  bias  question  about  the  Supreme  Court  Decision,  Clinton  gives  a   direct  and  well  defined  response.  She  creates  a  micro-­‐argument  to  back  up  her  claim  that  the  Supreme   Court  was  wrong  in  their  use  of  the  second  amendment  in  the  Heller  case.  To  strengthen  her  claim,   Clinton  follows  Toulmin's  structure,  which  suggests  that  data  and  warrants  are  needed  to  strengthen  the   validity  of  a  claim (Toulmin 1922).   Clinton makes her claim based from the  data  that  the  District  of   Columbia  was  trying  to  protect  toddlers  from  guns.  She  warrants  her  claim,  that  the  Supreme  Court  was   wrong  in  their  application  of  the  second  amendment,  by  stating  that  the  District  of  Columbia  wanted  a   reasonable  regulation  to  be  put  in  place,  which  was  for  guns  to  be  stored  safely.  Stating  that  the   regulation  was  reasonable  shows  the  audience  her  logical  step  leading  to  the  claim  that  the  court  was   wrong  not  to  allow  the  regulation.  She  additionally  provides  a  reservation,  "but  they've  accepted  many   others",  to  support  the  claim  that  they  were  wrong  in  this  one  case,  but  not  in  all  of  them.  This   reservation  further  strengthens  the  validity  of  her  claim.  Presenting  this  micro-­‐argument  allows  Clinton   to  state  that  she  agrees  with  the  Supreme  Court  in  other  cases  when  judge  Scalia's  words  "a  right  that  is   reasonably  limited"  are  followed.     The  Moderator  introduces  Trump  into  the  discussion  at  this  point.  He  asks  Trump  about  how  he  will   ensure  the  second  amendment  is  protected,  and  whether  Clintons  answer  was  persuasive.  There  is  a   clear  contrast  between  the  tone  of  this  question  presented  to  Trump  and  the  previous  one  given  to   Clinton,  highlighting  the  fundamental  problem  with  the  nature  of  this  topic.  The  2nd  Amendment  is  a   troublesome  topic  for  Democrats  who  wish  to  introduce  policies  such  as  safety  checks,  yet  an  easy  topic   for  Republicans  who  strongly  believe  that  the  amendment  should  have  no  restrictions.  This  is  due  to  the   opinion  shared  by  many  citizens,  that  the  wording  of  the  2nd  is clear and there is no place for policies to   restrict  gun  ownership  or  a  citizens  'right  to  bear  arms'.  The  means  that  questions  directed  to  right-­‐wing   republicans  never  question  their  values,  as  a  politician  following  the  exact  words  of  the  2nd  amendment   shouldn't  be  doubted...  whereas  a  democrat  attempting  to  restrict  the  extent  of  the  amendment  should   be  met  with  speculation  and  scrutinized  for  questioning  the  constitution.  This  attitude  is  evident  when   comparing  the  questions  given  to  both  Trump  and  Clinton.  Wallace's  phrasing  is  much  more  positive   towards  the  Republican  candidate,  and  gives  Trump  the  opportunity  to  talk  within  the  stasis  of  policy   and  convince  the  audience  of  how  he  will  'protect'  the  amendment.  More  over,  the  question  allows   Trump  to  easily  dismiss  Clinton's  views  and  build  upon  his  own  position  rather  than  waste  time   explaining  or  defending  his  views  like  Clinton  had  to.  Simply  from  the  phrasing  of  the  question  Trump  is   given  an  advantage  in  the  discussion.       Instead of using this opportunity to strengthen his position and close the stasis of policy, However,   Trump  focusses  purely  on  Clinton's  previous  answer  and  provides  a  weak  rebuttal.  It  is  clear  that   Trump's  message  is that he was not persuaded by Clinton's answer, due to her reaction after the   decision  was  made  by  the  Supreme  Court.  He  describes  Clinton's  reaction  as  very,  very  angry.  An   argument  he  makes  from  position  to  know,  which  he  claims  he  has  as  "[he]  watched"  her  reaction  at  the   time.  His  position-­‐to-­‐know  argument  is  much  weaker  than  Clinton's  in  her  previous  response  because  of   the  evidence  used.  Trump  claims  he  saw  a  reaction,  whereas  Clinton  talks  about  her  17  years  in   Arkansas,  a  much  stronger  set  of  evidence.  Trump's  main  rhetorical  tool  within  his  answer  is  his  strong   appeal  to  pathos.  He  focusses  on  the  extreme  reaction  of  Clinton,  and  introduces  the  effect  this  had  on   those  who  believe  in  the  second  amendment,  which  caused  them  to  be  "very  upset".     2 Trump's  first  response  showcases  another  weakness  in  this  debate.  His  lack  of  experience  in  this   situation  resulted  in  the  debate  failing  to  provide  strong  arguments,  and  a  loss  of  clash  among  stases.  By   not  continuing  in  the  same  stasis  as  the  question,  he  stops  the  flow  of  the  debate,  which  would  see  the   moderator  move  the  candidates  to  specific  stases  for  clash  to  occur.    Trump  doesn't  strengthen  his   values  or  policies  and  fails  to  state  how  he  will  uphold  the  2nd  amendment.  And  instead  of  providing   warrants  for  his  own  claims  which  Clinton  could  respond  to,  he  only  explaines  why  she  was  not   persuasive.  The  failure  of  clash  prevents  the  candidates  from  employing  questions  against  argument   schemes,  which  would  provide  an  interesting  and  strong  debate.     When  Wallace  returns  to  Clinton,  he  asks  another  negatively  bias  questions  "were  you  extremely   upset?"  (Questions  of  the  same  nature  but  asked  more  neutrally  could  have  been:  "How  upset  were   you?"  Or  "Does  Donald  persuade  you?"  Allowing  for  an  equal  and  unbiased  debate.)   Clinton  clarifies  that  she  was  upset,  but  supports  this  by  mentioning  that  "toddlers  injure  themselves,   even  kill  people".  By  highlighting  the  young  affected  by  lack  of  gun  control  she  is  appealing  to  the   emotions  of  the  audience,  and  makes  an  arguments  from  negative  consequences  as  she  shows  what   happens  when  there  aren't  "reasonable  regulations".  Once  she  gives  reason  to  her  emotions,  and   therefore  re-­‐instates her values, she moves on to her claim that there is no "conflict with sensible,   common  sense  regulation"  and  supporting  the  second  amendment.  In  fact,  in  her  previous  answer  she   made  this  claim  pre-­‐emtively,  and  backed  it  up  with  the  Supreme  Court's  expert  opinion,  that  the  right  is   reasonably  limited.  She  takes  this  opportunity  to  move  to  the  stasis  of  policy  again,  stating  her  wish  for   "people  to  come  together...  to  protect  and  defend  the  second  amendment...  in  a  way  that  tries  to  save   some  of  these  33,000  lives  that  we  lose  every  year."    While  her  policy  lacks  much  detail,  she  is  clear  with   what  she  wants  to  achieve.     When  the  Moderator  turns  to  Trump  for  the  final  answer  in  the  discussion,  he  asks  "You  support  a   national  right-­‐to-­‐carry  law.  Why,  Sir?"  Once  again,  the  framing  of  the  question  determines  how  the   candidate  answers.  If  it  is  negatively  bias,  the  candidate  must  provide  an  explanation,  if  positively  bias,   the  candidate  only  needs  to  agree  with  the  moderator  to  strengthen  their  position.   Rather  than  make  an  unwarranted  claim  that  gun  control  results  in  gun  violence,  it  would  have  been   stronger  for  Trump  to  support  and  elaborate  his  values  as  asked.  Trump  provides  no  answer  to  the   directed  question.  Instead,  he  delivers  a  claim  that  clashes  with  the  policies  supported  by  Clinton.  He   uses  data  from  the  example  of  Chicago,  where  there  have  been  tough  gun  laws,  to  claim  that  laws  result   in violence.  Unlike Clinton's claim, however, there is no warrant or qualifier or any reservation.  Trump   jumps from the data, to the claim:  "So, we have the toughest laws and you have tremendous gun   violence."  His  lack  of  expert  opinion  or  specific  statistics  in  this  case  hurt  his  claim,  and  leave  it  un-­‐ supported.  Trump  then  moves  to  the  stasis  of  policy,  as  asked  in  the  previous  question.  His  policy  is   quick  and  basic,  with  little  information,  but  one  that  comes  from  the  argument  scheme  of  positive   consequences.  His  logic  is:  Appoint  justices  who  feel  strongly  about  the  second  amendment,  and  it  will   not  be  damaged.  Trump  finishes  his  response  without  ever  answering  the  directed  question.     By  following  the  flow  of  stases,  it  is  unfortunate  to  see  that  there  was  little  clash  among  the  stasis  of   value  or  policy.  This  is  due  to  Trump's  lack  of  debate  experience  and  failure  to  address  the  questions   being  asked.  Clinton,  on  the  other  hand,  provided  strong  use  of  rhetoric.  She  re-­‐opened  and  closed   stases  with  ease  and  provided  logical  and  warranted  claims,  another  rhetorical  tool  that  Trump  used   poorly.  Clinton's  responses  become  even  more  impressive  when  we  understand  the  hurdles  she  had  to   3 overcome  within  this  debate  –  specifically  the  nature  of  the  topic  and  phrasing  of  the  questions.  Clinton   delivers  strong  reasoning  for  her  values  and  presents  possible  policies,  unlike  Trump,  who  never   provides  explanation  for  his  views.  This  results  in  the  audience  having  a  better  understanding,  and   therefore  a  higher  chance  of  being  persuaded  by  Clinton's  values  which  demonstrates  that  her  skilled   use  of  rhetorical  techniques  won  her  the  debate,  even  if  the  debate  itself  wasn't  very  strong.         Work  Cited   Clinton,  Hillary.    "The  Final  Trump  Clinton  Debate  Transcript"    Washington  Post,  Oct.  19.  2016.  Web.   Trump,  Donald.    "The  Final  Trump  Clinton  Debate  Transcript"    Washington  Post,  Oct.  19.  2016.  Web.   Wallace,  Chris.        "The  Final  Trump  Clinton  Debate  Transcript"    Washington  Post,  Oct.  19.  2016.  Web.   Fahnestock,  J.,  and  M.  Secor.  "The  Stases  in  Scientific  and  Literary  Argument."  Written  Communication   5.4  (1988):  427-­‐43.  Web.   Toulmin,  Stephen.  "The  Layout  of  Arguments"  Professing  the  New  Rhetorics  105-­‐125.  (1922)  Print.   4