Biden defends his management of the US border
Analyzing the article
Our Analysis: 2 Fallacies
[Answering, "Why should voters trust you to solve this [border] crisis?"] Because we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement that not only changed all of that, but it made sure that we are in a situation where you had no circumstance where they could come across the border with the number of border police there are now. We significantly increased the number of asylum officers.
...I've changed it in a way that now you're in a situation where there are 40 percent fewer people coming across the border illegally. That's better than when he left office.
Biden's arguments emphasize his administration's efforts to improve border security and immigration policies, including increasing asylum officers and reducing illegal border crossings, which are valid points highlighting specific policy actions and outcomes. However, his claims occasionally oversimplify complex issues or rely on personal anecdotes that divert from the policy debate, potentially obscuring a comprehensive understanding of the immigration challenges and solutions.
1. cherry picking • Biden selectively highlights a single instance to support his argument against Trump's border enforcement record, ignoring other evidence that might contradict his point.
The only terrorist who has done anything crossing the border is one who came along and killed three under his administration.
This focuses narrowly on a singular incident involving a terrorist act, neglecting any other possible incidents, attempts, or broader data on border crossings by individuals with terrorist affiliations or intentions. By doing so, it implies that this one case is representative of the overall situation, which may not be accurate.
2. red herring with appeal to emotion and ad hominem • Biden's mention of his son, while emotionally compelling and relevant to discussions about military service and respect for veterans, does not directly address the questions or claims being made about immigration policy, border security, or the handling of terrorists.
I went to the World War II cemetery - World War I cemetery he refused to go to. He was standing with his four-star general, and he told him - he said, "I don't want to go in there because they're a bunch of losers and suckers."
My son was not a loser. He was not a sucker. You're the sucker. You're the loser.
We bear in mind that Trump had started a red herring topic on veterans (departing from the original question on immigration), and Biden was playing off of that. Still, Biden's discussing the cemetery and his son serves to evoke sympathy or shift the emotional tone of the debate without contributing to a resolution or further clarification of any of the issues at hand. And this is before he finishes the segment with an abusive ad hominem attack on Trump.
References
- Joe Biden (2024, Jun 27). Biden on Immigration: Topic #3 of the Presidential Debate of June 27th, 2024.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/read-biden-trump-debate-rush-transcript/index.html
Disclaimer
Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'
NO AI TRAINING
Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
Comments