What is the context of the argument being made?

Find a two-minute clip on any debate aired on the news in the last year.
Provide a link to the clip and address the following:
What is the context of the argument being made?
Identify at least two or three rhetorical devices used during this debate and explain their effect on the audience. Do you think the speakers use these intentionally? If so, for what purpose? If not, explain your reasoning
Must be able to respond to a Peers video SAMPLE ANSWER
here is a two-minute clip on a debate aired on the news in the last year.
Context of the argument: The debate is about whether or not the United States should rejoin the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Paris Agreement is an international agreement that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat climate change. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2020 under the Trump administration.
Rhetorical devices:
Appeal to emotion: The speakers in the debate use emotional appeals to try to persuade the audience to their side. For example, the speaker who is in favor of rejoining the Paris Agreement talks about the importance of protecting the environment for future generations. The speaker who is opposed to rejoining the Paris Agreement talks about the economic costs of doing so.
Straw man argument: A straw man argument is an argument that misrepresents the opponent’s position in order to make it easier to attack. For example, the speaker who is opposed to rejoining the Paris Agreement says that the agreement will “kill jobs” and “wreck the economy.” However, the speaker in favor of rejoining the agreement never said that the agreement would do these things.
Red herring: A red herring is an irrelevant argument that is used to distract the audience from the main issue. For example, the speaker who is opposed to rejoining the Paris Agreement talks about how the agreement is unfair to developing countries. However, this is not relevant to the question of whether or not the United States should rejoin the agreement.
Intention:
I believe that the speakers in the debate use these rhetorical devices intentionally. They are trying to persuade the audience to their side by using emotional appeals, straw man arguments, and red herrings. These devices are effective in getting the audience’s attention and making them think about the issue in a certain way.
Response to peer video:
I watched the video that you shared. I think that the speaker uses a number of rhetorical devices, including appeal to emotion, straw man argument, and red herring. For example, the speaker says that “the future of our planet is at stake” and that “we need to take action now to prevent climate change.” This is an appeal to emotion because it is designed to make the audience feel afraid and guilty. The speaker also says that “the Paris Agreement is a bad deal for America” and that “it will kill jobs and wreck the economy.” This is a straw man argument because it misrepresents the agreement. The Paris Agreement is not a bad deal for America, and it is not going to kill jobs or wreck the economy. Finally, the speaker says that “the Paris Agreement is unfair to developing countries.” This is a red herring because it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the United States should rejoin the agreement.
I think that the speaker is using these rhetorical devices intentionally to persuade the audience to his side. He is trying to make the audience feel afraid, guilty, and angry so that they will support his position. However, I do not think that these devices are effective. They are transparent and manipulative, and they do not address the real issues involved in the debate.