While raising some valid concerns about Biden's age and cognitive abilities, Ben Rothove undermines his argument through frequent use of logical fallacies like false equivalences and emotionally loaded language that exaggerates Biden supporters as being part of a "cult." Despite attempting to portray himself as a rational critic, his overreliance on flawed rhetoric and tu quoque deflections about Trump ultimately weaken the persuasive impact of his criticisms of Biden and his supporters.

1. tu quoque and questionable comparison • The author attempts to discredit the argument that Trump is a threat to democracy by pointing out a perceived hypocrisy or wrongdoing by the Democratic Party (propping up an allegedly incapable Biden).

It is hard to make the case that Trump is a 'threat to democracy' when the Democratic Party is propping up an 81-year-old man who has to go to bed at 8 p.m. and needs picture guides to find his way to a podium.

This is a form of the tu quoque fallacy, which is a subtype of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It tries to dismiss criticism by charging the other party with similar or worse misconduct, implying that if they did something wrong too, the original criticism is invalid or hypocritical.

The comparison being made in that statement is also an example of a questionable analogy or false equivalence fallacy.

The reasons cited for Trump being a "threat to democracy" likely refer to his actions that directly undermined democratic norms and institutions, such as challenging the 2020 election results. However, the text tries to equate that to concerns about Biden's age and cognitive abilities impacting his job performance. While legitimate, those concerns are not equivalent to intentionally subverting democracy itself.

So in addition to the tu quoque/"two wrongs" fallacy, the statement commits a questionable analogy or false equivalence by portraying Biden's perceived incompetence as analogous to Trump's anti-democratic actions, when the nature of the two issues is quite different. Drawing that strained comparison between the two situations is an inaccurate and fallacious analogy.

2. loaded language with tu quoque • The following statement uses loaded and emotionally charged language by describing Biden supporters as being in a "cult."

After years of accusing Republican voters of being in a 'cult' for supporting former President Donald Trump, it seems that many Democrats have found themselves in a cult of their own by ignoring President Joe Biden's obvious inability to serve in the White House for four more years.

The word "cult" carries very negative connotations of indoctrination, blind obedience, and disconnection from reality. Applying that loaded term to characterize Biden supporters who disagree with the premise that he is unfit for office is an overstatement and inflammatory rhetoric.

Calling it a "cult" rather than simply saying they disagree with or are ignoring the perceived evidence about Biden's competence is an exaggeration using loaded language to cast those supporters in an extremely negative light.

The fact that some Democrats may have previously used the loaded term "cult" to describe Trump supporters does not then justify or excuse this author using the same loaded language towards Biden supporters. Employing that kind of inflammatory rhetoric and exaggerated characterization is still a fallacious use of loaded language, regardless of whether the opposing side has done the same thing in the past. Two wrongs don't make it right in this case.

The author attempting to turn the insult back around by calling Biden supporters a "cult" is an example of the tu quoque fallacy again - trying to deflect from the original critique by claiming hypocrisy. But that doesn't negate the loaded nature of using the term "cult" as an unjustified overstatement. The fact that the language has been used by partisans on both sides does not make it any less of a fallacious rhetorical tactic when employed by this author.

3. questionable comparison • The author attempts to draw an equivalence between Biden's "refusal to drop out" of the presidential race and Trump being characterized by his critics as "power-hungry and narcissistic."

More than anything, Biden's refusal to drop out shows that he is just as power-hungry and just as narcissistic as leftists insist Trump is.

A politician's decision to continue running for office, even if some perceive them as being unfit, is quite different from the accusations of narcissism and lust for power that were leveled at Trump's personality and governing style.

To say Biden is "just as power-hungry and narcissistic" based solely on not dropping out of the race is an inaccurate and strained comparison that falsely equates two very different situations and sets of behaviors. It creates a false equivalence between Biden's continued candidacy and the much broader charges of narcissism and power-hunger lobbied at Trump over his tenure as president.

This statement is yet another example of the author committing a questionable comparison or false equivalence fallacy