Analysis of Argumentation Schemes in Hillary and Trump’s Third Presidential Debate (Published)
In their everyday life, people are usually involved in different types of conversations, they discuss about their different needs and in order to gain what they want and win the conversation, they tend to utilize different verbal ploys or strategies such as argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes” Argumentation schemes are binding kinds of reasoning when seen as moves, or speech acts in the setting of dialogue“. They are significant features in presidential debates since they can be exploited via the discussants in order to beat each other and win the presidential battle. However, the current paper aims at discovering the different kinds of argumentation schemes, their role in political debates and how they can be effective factors in the persuading process. The study hypothesized that “scheme of analogy is the most common type of schemes that is generally utilized in the presidential debates. The data includes the third American presidential debate that held between Clinton and Trump 2016. It has been analyzed based on Walton’s(2002)concept of argumentation schemes. The hypothesis of the study is verified and the basic results that have been concluded from the study includes that Argumentation schemes are needed to be employed in any critical discussion because of its persuasive nature.They can be detected in humans every day discussions and people may employ them almost in all types of their conversations.Finally in presidential debates, the arguer exploits all his verbal attacked tools such as argumentation schemes to win the election race and get the audience’s votes, so it can be considered as a cheese game in which the player do his best to win the game.
Keywords: Arguers, Argumentation Schemes, Audience, Convince, Debates, Persuade