A review of two different websites that make different kinds of argumentative claims, one political, one commercial.
This paper discusses how a great deal of human communication is in the nature of argumentation and how in this day and age the “speech” that is going on on Web sites is also in the nature of (rhetorical) argument. It examines two different websites that make argumentative claims that the author was inclined to reject to help to determine the strength and persuasiveness of those claims. The first site is the Jeb Bush gubernatorial re-elections site and it evaluates how election sites are in many ways the quintessence of argumentative speech because the stakes are so high and the second site is that of Pepsi site to see if the author could be swayed to drink Pepsi.
“In asking what would constitute a good web-based argument for this candidacy, the answer would be one that supplied enough substantive coverage of the governor in a sufficiently balanced way that I would want to vote for him if I lived in Florida. This means that while the rhetoric should be persuasive it should not seem forced or so positive that it seems false.
The rhetoric on this site lacks that sense of balance. For example: The homepage of the site has a number of different options, such as “Women for Jeb,” “Hispanics for Jeb,” “Seniors for Jeb.” I find it hard to believe that people actually think of themselves in this way. The Web site’s categorization of people into convenient, poll-oriented demographics makes the campaign seem soulless and calculating, surely not the intention of the Bush advisers.”