This marks the beginning of Trump's many interjections throughout the debate.

Trump responds with a personal attack against Clinton. Reducing her to the actions of her husband directly and throwing in that "she never gets anything done" feels a bit childish.

Trump's ego is hurt by Clinton's comment that Trump choked (which, all things considered, may have been a bit immature), and has to respond to save face .

I'm hoping the rest of America cringed as hard as I did when I heard this comment.

The way Trump speaks about the drug epidemic and his "wall" doesn't address the fact that drugs don't just come from Mexico. Additionally, drug abuse doesn't end when an addict is cut off, abuse will last until an addict receives adequate treatment which Trump doesn't seem to support considering his stance on nationwide health care.

In general, we all know that it's a good idea to get rid of the bad people. But we also know that a person can't just say that they will rid the country of "all of the bad ones" without explaining how.

This is a strange little aside about all the problems President Obama and Secretary Clinton have apparently caused. Similarly to my comments before, this is another comment that will polarize the audience, one half in accordance with Trump, and the other turned off completely by this offshoot from the question.

To me, this just sounds like lies and sounds like it's being made up on the spot. Its awfully general, not giving any names or any specific evidence of any crime or any death.

Clinton explains that in her years as a politician, she's been able to travel the world and gain more perspective in women's rights on a global scale. She declares that "the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice." This powerful stance on a controversial issue may polarize the audience, but it plays toward her ethos on a large scale for the people that agree with her.

Clinton calls out Trump's use of fear-inducing rhetoric, which plays toward her ethos because it shows that she won't stand for that bully type behavior.

Trump is using language that he knows will scare viewers.

Trump's use of Secretary Clinton's first name delegitimizes her argument. Also, Trump's graphic language hits home with many different types of voters, evoking many different responses. One, for instance, a voter who is Pro-Life, may agree with Trump and agree that graphic language is the truth and should be used. Another, a voter who knows someone who has had to abort a pregnancy (or has had to go through one themselves), will hear this language and be turned off by such insensitivity and intolerance.

This answer does nothing to address Trump's support of assault weapons, high capacity magazines or a national right-to-carry law. All Trump says in this response is that he is glad to have the support of the NRA and would like to see a justice that supports the second amendment appointed.

Here, Clinton addresses the question and explains why any person who cares about the wellbeing of toddlers would feel the same way. She also explains that her response to the Supreme Court case isn't the be-all-end-all on her opinion on guns.

This doesn't really even answer Wallace's question. This just feels like a strange attack on Clinton and her emotions (or perceived emotions).

Clinton skillfully shows her bipartisanship with this answer. She is not so liberal to say we should abolish gun ownership completely, but isn't so conservative to deny that mass shootings have unfortunately become commonplace, and (lack of) gun regulation contributes to that.

Trump's conclusion is all over the place. To be frank, most of his statements are riddled with random figures (or worse, phrases like "millions", "many", etc.), and sound like they were thrown together a few minutes earlier. More on that later.

Again, Mr. Trump certainly knows his audience.

Trump panders to the portion of the audience that believes that their right to bear arms is being threatened. His language is strong, and it's a heated, controversial issue that his campaign has been consistent about, something that appeals to voters.

Politics is all about making every person, every citizen feel involved and feel like they have a say in the way their country is run. Clinton uses phrases such as "standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans" to empower viewers.

In this statement, Secretary Clinton addresses her main agenda: taking back control from major corporations and giving it to the American people.

Originally a British daily newspaper, the Guardian has expanded its reach to worldwide news reporting on a variety of issues.

Jessica Valenti is a feminist author and blogger, and is the founder of feministing.com. A short biography of Valenti can be viewed at: http://jessicavalenti.com/about

McEwan expertly phrases this important point! This excerpt could be used to support my claim that culturally, white males are privileged and coddled which can lead to violent outbursts.

By offering further evidence of misogynistic crime, the reader begins to understand how pressing this issue is. This plays to both the ethos and logos of Valenti. Ethos, because the author includes a link to the source, and logos because a list of examples can be seen as data, as evidence of wrongdoing.

Valenti is aware of the way in which crimes of this nature (and their perpetrators) are typically addressed in the media, and she makes a point to not allow the excuses. Too many times, excuses are made for men who commit heinous crimes like this. The perpetrator is referred to as the "lone wolf" who got in over his head, or was in some other way irresponsible for his own actions. By addressing this issue head on, Valenti gains trust from the reader and grows her ethos.

Valenti addresses her claim head-on here. Misogyny is toxic ideology that contributes to white male privilege. When that privilege is disrupted, and self-image is threatened, disaster can ensue.

Valenti, Jessica. "Elliot Rodger's California Shooting Spree: Further Proof That Misogyny Kills." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 24 May 2014. Web. 13 Oct. 2016.

In all fairness, Fortgang is considerably younger than any other author whose work I annotated. However, his work is published to be read and evaluated by whomever sees it, and he is still responsible for any stance he chooses to take on an issue.

TIME is a well-trusted source across the United States and around the world. However, reading this article makes me wonder how loosely regulated the publishing process is. This article comes off largely as a complaint regarding human interaction, and less of a professional essay on privilege in America.

This excerpt is a piece of Fortgang's claim. On a broader scale, this article's purpose is to address those who attempt to remind Fortgang of his privilege and explain why those people are out of line.

Objectively, this article is full of evidence to support the author's claim, but all of this so-called evidence is personal information. Personal information is impossible to corroborate which leaves the reader to simply trust the author to report honestly. However, in some respects, personal anecdotes can contribute to an author's ethos and pathos. Some audiences may find the content relatable, and agree with Fortgang that privilege is something to embrace and not to be ashamed of. If a reader agrees with Fortgang's assertions, their common frustration will build trust and emotional connection.

Personally, I do not believe that I am sacrificing anything in trying to better our environment, and that makes this comparison fall short. Separately, one thing to make clear in teaching people about privilege is that no one is at fault, and having privilege is not inherently bad. This article is somewhat difficult to argue because Fortgang's understanding or description of privilege is surface level. "Property and a set of values" are arbitrary to the discussion of pervasive, institutional racism.

This article serves as a perfect example of what the "other side" believes about white privilege and institutional racism.

Fortgang has a narrow view of privilege. An audience that disagreed with the author would assert that privilege is not just freedom from oppression, it is entwined in every aspect of society. Privilege is bigger than a family name or "legacy" as Fortgang states. It is layered, and its effects seep into every level of culture, economics, law enforcement, and further.

Again, a little too over-embellished, this sentence forces readers to piece things together. On another note, this sounds interestingly similar to the hypotheses of Lowery and Unzueta. When faced with evidence of white privilege and the myth of meritocracy, whites will feel their personal hardships have been downplayed and will be threatened by the thought that their accomplishments may have been handed to them because of their race.

Beginning the article with this statement will either hook or alienate the audience, depending on their opinions regarding these current issues of political correctness. Either way, from a writing standpoint, the casual yet dramatized tone makes for a strange introduction.

Upon googling Fortgang's name, the first several results are articles responding and criticizing Fortgang for this very article.

This title certainly does not beat around the bush.

Fortgang, Tal. "Why I'll Never Apologize for My White Male Privilege." Time. Time, 2 May 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

Unzueta, Miguel M., and Brian S. Lowery. "Defining Racism Safely: The Role of Self-image Maintenance on White Americans’ Conceptions of Racism." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44.6 (2008): 1491-497. Elsevier. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

This is a powerful point that illustrates why many individuals, when faced with evidence of white privilege, want to deny the facts: they feel threatened by the downplay of their own contributions to success (e.g. merit).

While reading this, I kept considering the authors' names and could not understand why, until I remembered that these writers also contributed to the second article I annotated, "Deny, Distance, or Dismantle"! This helps me as a reader to trust that these experts truly know what they are talking about.

Lowery and Unzueta explain the differences between the individual and institutional conceptions of racism, giving examples for each. This keeps the audience on the same page as the writers, and encourages ethos.

This short paragraph states all sides of the claim in understandable concise sentences, part by part. First, white Americans may deny racism as an institutional issue because it makes the individual more aware of the privilege he or she possesses due to the color of their skin. The authors found that is it is much less threatening to white individuals when they consider race an individual issue, a case-to-case offense, because then they are not faced with their privilege.

Author Brian S. Lowery is currently a professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business in California. He earned his doctorate at the institution for which his co-author currently teaches, UCLA. Lowery's work also focuses on inequality experienced by individuals. In fact, his findings indicate that "individuals distinguish between inequalities framed as advantage as opposed to disadvantage," and that this correlates to "how individuals perceive inequality and the steps they take, if any, to reduce it," (Stanford Graduate School of Business).

Both authors have focused their academic passion on the issue of diversity, social inequality, and perception of racial inequality. In sharing their findings on white's perception of racial in equality, the authors can shed light on the psychology behind the issue, hopefully having a positive impact on future race relations.

Biography and information on Lowery: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/faculty/brian-lowery

Author Miguel M. Unzueta is an associate professor of Management and Organizations at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. Unzueta's work focuses on the interworkings of social hierarchy and how that affects the way in which we view social in equality as a society. A short biography is available at the School of Management's website: http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/management-and-organizations/faculty/unzueta

The study the authors identified earlier in the paragraph is summed up excellently in this one statement. When faced with examples of the privileges of whiteness, those who identified strongly with their whiteness tended to feel threatened and insecure, consequently directing that negativity toward the outgroup.

Said in other terms, increased pride in whiteness equates to increased opposition to legislation that could negatively impact white privilege. This reminds me of the fact that most violent or murderous incidents in the news lately have been committed by white men who have considerable white pride and act out against people or groups threatening their privilege.

Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is an important and eye opening read! I was assigned to read this in a Race and Membership in American History class in high school. Here's a link to it: http://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

The authors interestingly admit that they disagree with the invisibility thesis, yet still want to discuss what it means and how credible it is. Continuing to give the audience both sides of the argument further solidifies ethos.

Before this statement, the authors are addressing what those with opposing views think about the topic of whiteness and privilege. This plays toward their ethos because it clearly outlines for the reader both sides of the issue, helping the reader to feel informed and to trust the authors to deliver credible information.

Furthermore, the authors use the terminology and apply it to their theory that when faced with evidence of white privilege, a white person will react in one of three ways, each reaction relating to their "concern for racial inequality and commitment to measures that might reduce it."

Knowles, Lowery, Chow and Unzueta give the reader vocabulary, defining and explaining the terms they use to discuss their theories. This works to hold the audience at the same academic level as the writers, assuring there is nothing lost in translation, so to speak.

The authors directly address their claim in this statement. Beginning the article with the reference to Ebony magazine vaguely introduces the topic of discussion, then by the end of the second paragraph it is understood by the audience what the intention and argument of the article is.

Knowles, E. D., B. S. Lowery, R. M. Chow, and M. M. Unzueta. "Deny, Distance, or Dismantle? How White Americans Manage a Privileged Identity." Perspectives on Psychological Science 9.6 (2014): 594-609. PsycINFO [EBSCO]. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The main author seems to be Eric D. Knowles. Knowles is an associate professor of Psychology at New York University. You can find a list of his publications with his contact information here: https://psych.nyu.edu/knowles/

The journal this article is published in, Perspectives on Psychological Science, is a bimonthly publication that is peer-reviewed and contains a wide variety of content. View the description by the parent company SAGE Journals: http://pps.sagepub.com/

As a general comment on this article, I'm left wanting more, but this is a good article to get me started off. This piece gives me some background information and a bit more direction in terms of what I'm researching. I may just use this source for back up in the future, as opposed to using it as the main support of an argument.

Even when many white men were accused of such acts, for some reason, the white men are deemed innocent while the scapegoats become stereotypes of their race.

This is a poignant assertion. Non-whites (and their actions) are usually seen as a representative of their larger group, whereas whites are given the benefit of being considered as an individual. For example, if a black man robs a store, that group (either African Americans as a whole, or African American men) is assumed to have the tendency to rob; whereas if a white man robs a store, he is seen as the outlier, the exception to the rule.

Martinez, Amanda R. "REVIEW OF: Redefining Rape: Sexual Violence in the Era of Suffrage and Segregation." The Journal of Race and Policy 10.1 (2014): 111-15. Ethnic NewsWatch [ProQuest]. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The author of this review, Amanda R. Martinez, is an assistant professor in communication studies, sociology, and gender & sexuality studies at Davidson College in North Carolina. This review is posted in The Journal of Race and Policy.

Martinez's claim is that "Redefining Rape" by Freedmen is an important read that chronicles the history of rape and how it intertwines with race and gender relations in the United States.

The author of the original piece being reviewed ("Redefining Rape" by Estelle B. Freedmen) includes context in how rape and sexual assault have been addressed over the course of history. She addresses cultural response to rape and accusations of such beginning in the 1600s and working toward the present.

I would consider referencing or quoting highlighted portion to show that it is nothing new for white men to be excused for their wrongdoings and, in turn, for non-whites to be accused and then stereotyped for such crimes.

The historical context in this quote is so powerful and poignant.