| Abstract: | Appealing to values is an effective form of argumentation. In our analysis of the Bush-Gore debate, we found that values are fundamental in framing issues; their effectiveness is contingent on the issue context and the predisposition of the audience. Thus, merely constructing an appeal to values does not guarantee persuasiveness, as the appeal must be concrete in nature when attempting to move an audience to action. Such an appeal goes beyond creating a link between the value appeal and the issue, as the value appeal and the issue position must resonate with a defined audience. Our results indicate that most undecided voters who made up their minds as a result of the debate chose Gore, while a few chose Bush and some remained undecided. Those who chose Gore were clearly more egalitarian in their orientation than undecided voters who chose Bush or could not decide. Bush's use of individualism did not seem to persuade undecided voters, nor did it seem to have a detrimental impact on support for Gore. For the most part, Bush's support remained constant before and after the debate, at least among this particular audience. |
