Logical fallacies in contemporary political discourse and media debates

Ad hominem fallacy, the arguer's character is attacked rather than the argument itself. It's based on the conviction that the when the opponent's credibility is destroyed, then they are distracted from tackling the argument. For instance, there was a heated discussion in the interview ob Bill O'Reilly a television reporter and Michael Moore a film maker. The topic was on the necessity of the Iraq war and Michael Moore says, "Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can't think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don't know a worse..." He does not say what he thinks was necessary or still to the debate at hand but rather goes ahead and launches an attack on the honesty of Bush. He attacks bush's character by calling him a liar. His opinion on the necessity of the Iraq war isn't shown on his attach on bush character.

Hasty generalization

Limited evidence is used in a hasty generalization to reach a conclusion (Ramage 434). They are the basis of the creation of stereo types whereby through observation of the a few group of people who act in a particular manner, the conclusion that the rest of the group also behaves that way is reached. A sample case is the Village Voice editor's section letter where the discussion revolves around who is to blame for Hurricane Katrina. Sunsara Taylor who is the author of the letter says, "The Bush regime is responsible for mass murder by criminal neglect in the Gulf coast. It is exactly appropriate, while mourning, to hold it responsible for this needless death and suffering" (Taylor 1). By making a conclusion that the President Bush is liable for the hurricane is hasty generalization because the writer does not provide evidence to support this claim.

Appeal to ignorance

The audience are presented with evidence and expected to convince them even though they are not capable of examining or judging the evidence. A sample example is a letter in Baltimore Sun paper Editor's section where by the topic is on whether the gay's union should be legalized at this time. Betty Papson writes, "The last 30 years have seen significant deterioration of the nuclear family. At the same time, there have been a significant rise in sexual abuse, sexually transmitted disease, abortion, drug use and the like" in a gay marriage rejection letter. There isn't a reason for believing the facts presented as true even though it seems like an influential argument. Facts which cannot be evaluated by the audience are being used by the writer in proving their article. There isn't a way to establishing if the evidence are factual even though they are significant in the support of her argument (Papson 1).

Straw man

In straw man, the opponent's is attacked through attributing the opponent to an implausible position which is weak when actually it's not the opponent's position. The opponent's position is summarized inaccurately and easily dismissed. In response to the question regarding the troops pullout from Iraq President George Bush says, "We've heard some people say, pull them out right now. That's a huge mistake. It'd be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis." The opposing view point is exaggerated by the straw man statement that an immediate troop withdrawal is being advocated by unmanned people. An immediate troop withdrawal was not backed by any of the adversaries of Bush. Actually the plan of sending the soldiers over several months was proposed by most of them (Raley and Talisse).

Equivocation

This is when a person utilizes a word several times in an argument capitalizing on its different meaning thereby shifting semantically hence changing the context thus establishing a fallacy. An example is an article that appeared in New York Times whereby the rating of AAA was used although it had different meaning. Floyd Norris writes that the securities from Merril were highly conservative and above AAA credit quality (Norris). The equivocation is although the securities were rated AAA, so they must be safe but how safe. Even though they are rated AAA they are not the same quality as the other received by the corporate or the banks.

Appeal to tradition

The author argues that his proposition should be pursued simply because it's the way they have always been done. An argument that appeared in the New York Times exhibits this fallacy where the author was defending the Century Club membership policy which was an all male club started in 1847. When it was proposed that the women be admitted into the club the following was proposed by the Presbyterian minister, "I am totally opposed to a proposal which would radically change the nature of the Century .... A club creates an ethos of its own over the years, and I would deeply deplore a step that would inevitably create an entirely different kind of place. A club like the Century should be unaffected by fashionable whims...." He uses the appeal of tradition to defend his stand on women admission to the club even though the social perceptions have changed since its inception.