After watching the third presidential debate there are repetitive style of argument styles of the debates. After watching the presidential debates there are some questions that arise from confusion or contradictions after the debate. I realize that President Obama have discussed some issues with half true facts as well as readdressing the past/situation every time Romney had finished discussing his main views. President Obama pinpoints the flip-flopping that presidential nominee Mitt Romney and discusses the flaws of his arguments. Also, president Obama tries to sell his story even more with the foreign policies by trying to have other nations to get involve to decrease the nuclear arms of Iran to keep the pressure. 

On the other hand,  it seems that Mitt Romney didn't have his usual fire-like enthusiasm like the past two debates. Mitt Romney became a bit of a more yes-man and agreed with president Obama on some occasions, though maybe because it was from a negative feedback from the population. Romney's style of argument pinpoints the fact that the change Obama proposes haven't been effective and the rates of unemployment been bigger than ever. He even criticized the tour that Obama had around the middle east countries had made U.S viewed as weak by his lack of reactions. 

Both candidates seem to repeat the jabs that have been previously made before with a different context and content in the debate. There was nothing major in either speeches that made me want to join to either's side immediately, but it is through my background and the benefits I would make from either's standpoints that encourages me to vote.