In discussing foreign policy at the presidential debate, Trump argues that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine under his leadership and that Biden's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and his alleged weakness on the world stage emboldened Putin to take aggressive action. However, Trump's arguments often rely on unsubstantiated claims, such as his popularity among veterans and soldiers, and he engages in rhetorical fallacies, such as a red herring and a faulty comparison, which distract from the main issues and oversimplify complex geopolitical situations.

1. red herring • When asked specifically about the war in Ukraine, Trump immediately diverts to a different topic.

MODERATOR: Are Putin's terms [for ending the war in Ukraine] acceptable to you? ​TRUMP: First of all, our veterans and our soldiers can't stand this guy. They can't stand him. They think he's the worst commander in chief, if that's what you call him, that we've ever had. They can't stand him. So let's get that straight.

This diverts the conversation from the original topic about the acceptability of Putin's terms regarding Ukraine to an unrelated issue (Biden's alleged unpopularity with the troops), to detract from addressing the actual question posed. Although the moderator drags Trump back to the original topic (and gets a relevant response from Trump) at a later point in the debate, the red herring has been used to conflate the topic with doubts about Biden's leadership based on an unsubstantiated generalization.

2. questionable equivalence • Trump likens Biden to "a Palestinian" in a simplistic way and without sufficient justification.

He said the only one who wants to keep going is Hamas. Actually, Israel is the one, and you should them go and let them finish the job. He doesn't want to do it. He has become like a Palestinian. But, they don't like him because he is a very bad Palestinian. He is a weak one.

A faulty comparison or equivalence occurs when someone compares two things that are not sufficiently similar in the relevant aspects, leading to an inaccurate or misleading conclusion. Even if we assume that Biden and Palestinians share some common goals, such as wanting to reduce casualties and achieve a ceasefire in the current conflict, there are still significant differences between their positions that are relevant to the discussion.

1. Role and responsibility: As the U.S. president, Biden must balance the interests of the U.S., its allies (including Israel), and the international community, while also adhering to domestic political pressures and legal constraints. Palestinians, on the other hand, are directly affected by the conflict and have a more immediate stake in its outcome.
2. Long-term goals: While Biden and Palestinians may share short-term goals related to the current conflict, their long-term objectives and visions for the region may differ. The U.S. has historically supported a two-state solution and has prioritized Israel's security concerns, while Palestinians seek an end to the occupation, self-determination, and the establishment of an independent state.
3. Political and ideological differences: Biden, as a democratic leader, operates within a different political system and ideological framework than Palestinian leaders, who include both democratically elected officials and members of militant groups like Hamas. These differences can shape their approaches to the conflict and their willingness to compromise or engage in diplomacy.
4. Accountability and legitimacy: As an elected official, Biden is accountable to the American people and must consider public opinion and political consequences when making decisions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, may derive their legitimacy from different sources, such as popular support, armed struggle, or religious authority.

By acknowledging these differences, we can see that even if Biden and Palestinians share some common goals in the current conflict, their positions and actions are shaped by distinct political, ideological, and strategic factors. Comparing them without considering these nuances leads to an oversimplified and misleading analysis of the situation.

3. appeal to popularity with sweeping generalization • Trump claims that veterans and soldiers like him more than other leaders, implying that this popularity makes his stance on foreign policy issues valid.

And they [veterans and soldiers] like me more than just about any of them. And that's based on every single bit of information.

Even if it were true that veterans and soldiers prefer Trump over other leaders, this does not necessarily mean that his policies or decisions are correct or justified. Popularity is not a reliable indicator of the merit or effectiveness of a leader's actions, especially in complex foreign policy matters.

There are other problems with this statement, such as sweeping generalization. The opinions of veterans and soldiers are not monolithic, and it is unlikely that they unanimously support Trump or any other leader. By claiming that he is liked by this group as a whole, Trump oversimplifies the diversity of views and experiences within the military community.

Additionally, this is somewhat of an appeal to emotion. By invoking the support of veterans and soldiers, Trump attempts to gain credibility by relying on the audience's feelings of respect for the military rather than the strength of his arguments or the soundness of his policies.