For Aristotle, Rhetoric is not only the art of persuasion, but also is an art of discovering

and being able to see what is persuasive (Rapp, 2022). The best rhetoricians are those individuals
that have fully mastered of their own method of rhetoric, and that in order to attain such mastery
of rhetoric one must be able to have seen all available means to persuade as this can allow an
individual to find a method of rhetoric that is most effective for them. Aristotle also discusses
how rhetoric can come about in three different ways, namely through the character of the speaker
(ethos), the emotional state of the audience (pathos), and the argument itself (logos). There have
been many popular examples of world leader using such rhetoric in their politics, such as Adolf
Hitler who all three ways – wherein he made use of ethos by often appealing to his audience's
emotion in order to stir up fear, anger, and frustration; he made use of pathos by presenting
himself as a charismatic and powerful leader who had a deep and genuine love for Germany; and
he made use of logos by often presenting his ideas in a structured and organized way, using data
and statistics, which are arguably falsified and construed, in order to support his arguments.. On
a local point of view, such a case can also be seen when analyzing former President Rodrigo
Duterte’s speech during the 2018 State of the Nation Address.

In his speech the former President was able to also use all three of Aristotle’s concepts in
rhetoric to further persuade his fellow politicians and countrymen about the necessity to continue
the inhumane war against drugs in the country. In his SONA, President Duterte used logos in his
persuasion by presenting several statistics and data to support his claims for the necessity of
continuing the war on drugs, such as how they were able to seize millions of pesos worth of
drugs, and how they were able to lower the crime rates in many provinces, cities, municipalities,
and barangays all over the country. He was also able to use ethos through maintaining his
presence as a strongman, authoritative type leader which is one of the primary characteristics that
made him popular and that the public loved him for. Lastly, he was also able to show pathos by
appealing to the emotions of his audience using victims of drug use and drug abuse, and law
enforcers and their families that have been a victim of violence in maintaining peace and order in
the country. His appeal to the emotions of the public is also best seen in the lines “Your concern
is human rights, mine is human lives” and “Your concern is about the present, I am concerned
about the present and the future,” which both suggest that from a political standpoint he has great
care and concern about the lives of the people in this country, and sees that the war on drugs is
the primary solution to continue to preserve these lives.
 The speech of former President Rodrigo Duterte during his SONA in 2018 stirred a
variety of reactions from the public. One of the most notable came from lawyer and former
Solicitor General Florin Ternal Hilbay, wherein he posted a number of tweets addressing his
concerns and his perspective regarding the speech delivered by the former President. Upon
analyzing the tweets posted by Florin Hilbay, it can be seen that he has also made use of the three
ways of persuasion according to Aristotle, wherein he used logos by presenting data on how the
war on drugs was not able to stop the smuggling and drug trade in the Philippines, an example of
which was mentioned in the tweet where 6.8 billion pesos worth of drugs have been smuggled in
the Bureau of Customs. Hilbay was also able to use ethos by establishing expertise and
credibility in politics as he presented himself as a lawyer, a former Solicitor General, and an
advocate of human rights in the country. Lastly, he was able to use pathos by using emotional
appeals to stir up empathy and compassion for the victims of the war on drugs, such as the
families of those who were killed or wrongfully accused. He also uses vivid and powerful
language to portray the human toll of the war on drugs, such as the line "aanhin mo ang buhay
kung walang karapatan?" in the hopes of invoking a sense of outrage and indignation among his
followers.

In comparison both forms of persuasion presented by the two parties both made use of
the Aristotelian concepts of rhetoric. In terms of logos, Hilbay and Duterte both provide evidence
and examples to back up their arguments and persuasions. Hilbay provides evidence on the
persistent prevalence of drug smuggling and the absence of due process, while Duterte
emphasizes the success of his administration's drug-war efforts. In terms of ethos, Hilbay
positions himself as a respectable and knowledgeable legal professional and advocate of human
rights, whereas Duterte establishes his credibility by virtue of his office as President and
his reputation for being a strong and authoritative leader. In terms of pathos, both parties use
emotional appeal to persuade their audiences to side with them and to incite a feeling that would
best fit their argumentation, wherein Hilbay uses the victims of human rights abuses to provoke
outrage among the Filipino people and Duterte uses victims of drug use and abuse to attain the
support of his fellow countrymen.

Another interesting thing that can be analyzed when comparing and contrasting these two
different rhetoric is the mode in which they were delivered and presented to the masses. Former
president Duterte uses traditional media in delivering his speech, while Hilbay uses social media,
which is a type of new media. According to Hodroj (2022), The advantages of new media
include lower costs and simpler production and distribution processes. It is also easier to access
because anyone with an Internet connection can use it from anywhere in the world. Furthermore,
because it promotes involvement and engagement, wherein new media is frequently more
engaging and is more open to discourse and conversation than traditional media. With this in
mind, it may be inferred that the mode of delivery of Hilbay may have been more effective in
terms of maximizing the reach to the masses as compared to Durterte’s. However, one
disadvantage that may diminish the effectivity of political rhetoric in social media would be the
excess provision of engagement that leads to trolling, unhelpful feedback, and illogical
argumentation, which in comparison to traditional media is less likely to occur due to the
limitation of engagement.

Additionally, it can also be inferred that if, hypothetically, these two rhetoric were
published in opposite platforms that the persuasive quality of their messages may change due to
the following reasons: (1) The demographics, interests, and consumption patterns of audiences
for traditional media and new media platforms can vary. For instance, younger generations may
favor new media, while older generations may rely more heavily on conventional media; and (2)
Modern media platforms frequently enable greater audience contact and involvement, for
example through comments, likes, and shares. This can improve the persuasiveness of a message
since it fosters a closer relationship between the speaker and the listener, which, as previously
discussed, is not likely in traditional media platforms. With regards to engagement, it can also be
concluded that even though the amount of comments and likes of the tweets does not necessarily
indicate credibility of the message of the tweet nor of its messenger, it is still a great indicator of
its reach, which is a vital part of persuasion.

In reference to Dr. Navera’s paper, the rhetoric in both discourses were used for the
following purposes: (1) policy-making or changing, wherein Duterte used rhetoric in order to
persuade the people to agree with his policy on the war against drugs, while Hilbay used rhetoric
in order to call for a change in this policy; (2) consensus building, wherein Duterte used rhetoric
in order to foster trust and cooperation from his fellow countrymen with his decisions to
maintain the war against drugs, while Hilbay used rhetoric to develop a shared perspective
among the people regarding the cruelty that the war on drugs incites against the people; (3) to
trump the dominant rhetoric occurring, which was mostly manifested to their differing stances on
the war against drugs and how each wanted to trump the arguments of those opposing to their
perspective; and (4) to induce action, wherein Duterte’s rhetoric wanted to garner the active
support of the people, while Hilbay’s rhetoric wanted to awaken the masses’ strong emotions.

In the end, these two rhetoric were able to cultivate citizenly discourse, as they were able
to provide two opposing perspectives that offered a plethora of information and evidences that
can be readily analyzed by the individuals in the community and in society. These two opposing
rhetoric can be used by the people to actively participate in the social and political environment
of our country, as well as increased their overall awareness regarding the occurrence of social
issues and injustices and improve and promote their critical thinking about various information
and arguments presented to them.
Sources:

Hodroj, R. (2022, October 24). The Difference Between Traditional Media and New Media.

Consumer Choice Award. Retrieved from https://www.ccaward.com/the-difference-

between-traditional-new-media/#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20new%20media%20is
%20often,can%20produce%20and%20distribute%20it.&text=It%27s%20impossible
%20to%20predict%20exactly%20where%20the%20world%20of%20media%20is
%20headed.

Rapp, C. (2022, March 15). Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/