Analysis of Fallacies in Hillary and Trump's Second Presidential Debate (original) (raw)
Related papers
Recognizing the Forms of Fallacious Arguments
2004
Speakers and writers commit logical fallacies for several reasons. Scientific writers may commit fallacies due to their ignorance. Scriptwriters, however, frequently commit fallacies intentionally for commercial reasons. To make things worse, politicians intentionally commit fallacies and even manipulate them as their weapons to win an argument. This paper tries to describe several forms of fallacies commonly found in communication. This paper is significant for readers to be aware of such fallacies in any context they are dealing with
An Analysis of Logical Fallacy on Joko Widodo’s Arguments During 2019 Indonesia Presidential Debate
English Language and Literature, 2019
This research aimed at finding the types of logical fallacies on Indonesia presidential debates made particularly by one of the presidential candidates, Joko Widodo, during the 2019 Indonesia presidential debates. The theory of fallacy classification by Damer (2009) which introduces five categories and sixty types of fallacies was employed in this research. Of all the sixty types, only twelve of which were found. The results show that, first, fallacies that violate the rebuttal criterion became the most dominantly occurred category with the occurrence of more than a half number of all occurrences and with five types out of twelve types. Second, abusive ad hominem was the most dominant type made by Jokowi with the frequency of 21.73% and followed by the fallacy of red herring and false alternatives with the same frequency of 17.39.
ARGUMENTATIVE STATEMENTS IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES OF THE U.S: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 2017
This study investigates the argumentative statements of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the debates. By employing two theories, Van Dijk's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Toulmin's model of argument, it aims to expose how various ideologies are expressed in the structure of arguments. It uses Toulmin (2003) model of argument to analyze the structures of argumentation during the debates constituting six elements (i.e. claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal). While Van Dijk's framework covering three levels of discourse structure (the meaning, the argumentation and the rhetoric) is used to analyze the reproduction of racism, manipulation, and Islamophobia. The result indicates the discourse of the candidates contributes the reproduction of manipulation by focusing on the positive self-presentation of " us " (civilized) and negative other-presentationof " them " (terrorists) as a mind control of the audience.
Models For The Pragmatic Analysis Of Fallacy In Obama's Political Speeches
Fallacy as a derailment of strategic maneuvering can be defined as the process of issuing a defective argument (when subjected to certain criteria) to support and strengthen a previously issued one for purposes of persuasion. However, fallacy is a broad topic that has been approached from different perspectives. Several studies have attempted to tackle fallacy pragmatically. Yet, those attempts have suffered from many gaps and drawbacks which have characterized them as insufficient accounts in this regard. Hence, this work has set itself the task of dealing with this problem through developing pragmatic models for the analysis of fallacy as far as its pragmatic structure, types and strategies are concerned. These models are built upon several models introduced by several scholars in addition to the observations made by the researchers themselves. The validity of the developed models has been tested by means of analyzing sixteen fallacious situations taken from Barak Obama's war and electoral speeches. The analyses conducted have proved that the models developed are workable. Besides, they have yielded various results among which it has been concluded that fallacy is a process composed of various stages. Each stage is distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies.
Fallacy Selection Criteria for Effective Debate Training
Proceedings 4th International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment, Sellami A. S. (Ed.), pp. 199-214.
Debating is an extremely time-consuming activity in which extensive preparation and long, intensive tournaments and championships may even endanger both students’ grades and scholars' research. The teaching of fallacies, which is an important part of debating training, is also very time-consuming, because fallacies are very numerous and their theories complex. Therefore, for debate training, it is indispensable to have criteria to optimize the teaching of fallacies in terms of effective methods and speed of instruction. However, when one surveys the literature on debating, such criteria seem sometimes unsupported, irrelevant or, even if relevant, affected by incompleteness. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on these criteria to assist debate coaches in designing thorough, relevant, and quick fallacy didactics, and thus to optimize it and avoid the negative impact authors often ascribe to the fallacy approach. Therefore, a comprehensive framework to highlight which fallacies are more relevant in competitive debating is developed by reviewing argumentation and debate literature related to fallacy didactics. Examples and tables are provided to explicate the conclusion and outcomes of this study.
Fallacious Argument Classification in Political Debates
Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Fallacies play a prominent role in argumentation since antiquity due to their contribution to argumentation in critical thinking education. Their role is even more crucial nowadays as contemporary argumentation technologies face challenging tasks as misleading and manipulative information detection in news articles and political discourse, and counter-narrative generation. Despite some work in this direction, the issue of classifying arguments as being fallacious largely remains a challenging and an unsolved task. Our contribution is twofold: first, we present a novel annotated resource of 31 political debates from the U.S. Presidential Campaigns, where we annotated six main categories of fallacious arguments (i.e., ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, false cause, slogan, slippery slope) leading to 1628 annotated fallacious arguments; second, we tackle this novel task of fallacious argument classification and we define a neural architecture based on transformers outp...
Do people make different assessments of fallacies in conversation based on fallacy type, topic type, and trait measures of conflict personalization? College students (n¼322) completed the Taking Conflict Personally battery (Hample & Dallinger, 1995) and evaluated fallacies’ appropriateness, effectiveness, soundness, and playfulness. Six fallacies were used: ad hominem, appeal to pity, threat, undistributed middle term, affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent. Topics were personal or public. Fallacy type had no significant effects on assessment of the fallacy. Topic type (personal v. public) had significant effects on assessments, and personalization of conflict scores were associated with higher playfulness ratings.
The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to the Fallacies Revisited
Argumentation
This article explains the design and development of the pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In this approach fallacies are viewed as violations of the standards for critical discussion that are expressed in a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse. After the problem-solving validity in resolving differences of opinion of the rules of this code has been discussed, their conventional validity for real-life arguers is demonstrated. Starting from the extended version of the theory in which the strategic maneuvering taking place in argumentative discourse is included, the article explains that the violations of the rules that are committed in the fallacies involve derailments of strategic maneuvering. This culminates in a discussion of the exploitation of hidden fallaciousness as an unreasonable way of increasing the effectiveness of argumentative discourse – a vital topic of research in present-day pragma-dialectics.