 | |  |
 |
|
|
| National
Student Debater Picks Edwards in Close Win Over Cheney |
Posted:
10.06.04 | |
|
Vice President Dick Cheney and vice presidential nominee John
Edwards met Tuesday night for the first and only vice presidential debate of the
2004 election. The candidates touted their stances on troop levels in Iraq, health
care, the economy and the war on terror. Lincoln-Douglas Debater Michael Watson
Frick reviews the match-up. Click here
to read Michael's bio. | |
|
|
|
In the first and only vice presidential debate of the 2004 election old sage,
Dick Cheney, who never ran out of weary sighs, and the new idealist in town, John
Edwards, who always had a photogenic smile, moved from a bitter and testy beginning
that eventually cleared the way for a more productive discussion. | |
| | | |
| Style
and Rhetoric | |
|
|
|
|
Both Cheney and Edwards displayed competent oratorical skills. Cheney, touted
as being more comfortable at round table discussions, spoke with fluency and few
missteps throughout the evening. Edwards appeared more unsure - breaking a "rule"
 set
by moderator Gwen Ifill at one point - but nevertheless lived up to his reputation
as a great public speaker. Cheney's habit of starting most rebuttals with a heavy
sigh gave him an exasperated and impatient image - a stark contrast to Edwards'
over eagerness in launching into answers. Hearkening back to his days as
a trial lawyer, Edwards was particularly adept at using the rhetoric of Cheney
for his own advantage. This was most clear when Edwards reemphasized Cheney's
point about "philosophical differences" between the two administrations.
Both speakers referred to the men headlining their tickets often, heaping praise
on the respective presidential nominees. | |
|
| Responsiveness
to Questions Asked | |
|
|
|
|
From a formal debate perspective, both candidates could use work on responding
directly to the questions asked and to each other's arguments. Edwards often started
speeches with long, winding introductions before finally saying, "Now to
answer the question." If Edwards was prone to long tangents, Cheney  tended
to steer the question in a direction he favored. For example, Cheney engaged in
a lengthy discussion about the No Child Left Behind Act in response to Ifill's
question about jobs and poverty - a tactic that elicited comment from Edwards.
Both men also possessed "crutch" issues that they fell back on
in order to fill time. Edwards loved to focus questions on health care - practically
begging Ifill to ask about the subject - while Cheney would often avoid a direct
rebuttal to discuss John Kerry's lack of qualifications. Overall, Edwards was
better at directly answering questions - even if it took him a while to get to
the meat of his argument. | |
|
| Argumentation | |
|
|
|
|
The debate lived up to the prediction as a contest between divergent styles.
Edwards, while full of facts and figures, supported his argumentation with a healthy
dose of anecdotes. The tendency to launch into a personal monologue was effective
at times (the story about the children for whom he litigated) and distracting
at others (the story in his closing statement about his father studying math at
breakfast).  In
contrast, Cheney almost never waxed poetic - sticking to the facts to make his
case. Cheney's style trusted the audience to digest and interpret the facts, while
Edwards assumed people wanted issues broken down into simple terms.
At times,
both candidates talked past each other, presenting different statistics without
addressing the merits of the information provided by the other. Cheney started
half of his rebuttals to John Edwards by saying: "His facts are just plain
wrong." Often, this assertion composed the crux of Cheney's response. Cheney
also allowed Edwards to control the discussion about Halliburton - claiming he
couldn't explain the situation in the allotted amount of time and instead criticizing
Edwards' Senate record (or lack thereof). It was a relief to see that contentious
and potentially slanderous claims that have plagued both campaigns (the truth
to John Kerry's Vietnam record) didn't mire the debate. However, the discussion
about flip-flopping was an old argument without new breakthroughs. Both candidates
cited numerous examples of the other side changing positions. Forgetting the flip-flop
issue and focusing on more substantive concerns would have streamlined the debate. | |
|
| Closing
Thoughts | |
|
|
|
|
Both Dick Cheney and John Edwards played their roles perfectly, remaining true
to the images expected of them. Overall style was good and predictable on both
sides. Argumentation improved when the candidates stopped criticizing the record
of  the
other to focus on advancing their positions on important issues. Cheney was more
factual and direct, Edwards more proficient at responding to claims made by Cheney. In
the end, I believe John Edwards won the debate. He was able to capitalize on the
momentum garnered from the first presidential debate to further clarify the Democratic
stance on important issues. He did so with more direct responses and a more approachable
image than his opponent. --
Michael Watson Frick, a freshman at Kenyon College in Gambier, OH. | |
| | | |
| | |
American schools and financial aid should be only for legal citizens of the United States. There should be no exceptions to this.
