President Biden's speech, while highlighting his administration's accomplishments and emphasizing the importance of preserving American democracy, relies on a false dilemma that oversimplifies the complex nature of the political landscape. He presents the upcoming election as a binary choice between preserving democracy and losing it altogether, failing to acknowledge the potential shortcomings of both parties in terms of their commitment to democratic processes and principles. While the events of January 6th were indeed a significant threat to American democracy, asserting simply that a Trump win would inevitably lead to a greater threat to democracy is an oversimplification that fails to consider the complex nature of the political landscape and the potential actions of both parties that may undermine democratic values.

• Despite that Biden provides stirring descriptions of some authoritative figures, we do not find that it makes him guilty of an appeal to authority or appeal to emotion fallacy when he says, in his opening:

In this sacred space, I'm surrounded by portraits of extraordinary American presidents. Thomas Jefferson wrote the immortal words that guide this nation. George Washington showed us presidents are not kings. Abraham Lincoln implored us to reject malice. Franklin Roosevelt inspired us to reject fear.

The reason these statements are not fallacious is that Biden does not leverage them as argumentative support for any particular conclusion. Rather, they are used to provide context setting up his personal statement which follows: "I revere this office, but I love my country more. It's been the honor of my life to serve as your president."

While the series of statements may tend to arouse empathy for the president, it is not linked to the political points that he makes later in the speech. Moreover, it seems appropriate to someone explaining why he has chosen voluntarily to end his multi-decade career in public service.

In the remainder of the eleven-minute speech, Biden mostly steers clear of logical fallacies, with a couple of exceptions.

1. cherry picking (omission of context) •  Biden selects specific information to present a favorable image while ignoring the broader context of U.S. involvement in global conflicts.

I'm the first president of this century to report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world.

While the U.S. may not have officially declared war or have troops directly engaged in combat, the country is still involved in various conflicts worldwide through financial aid, weapons supply, and political support.

The statement fails to acknowledge the U.S. government's ongoing support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and Israel in its conflict with Hamas. By providing financial aid and weapons to these countries, the U.S. is indirectly participating in these wars, even if no American troops are directly involved in combat.

Additionally, the presence of U.S. citizens held captive by Hamas further complicates the claim that the U.S. is not at war anywhere in the world.

2. false dilemma with slippery slope and appeal to fear • Biden suggests that if his opponent wins the election, it will lead to a series of events that ultimately threaten democracy, and that the obvious alternative is to support his party's ticket, which seeks only to "save democracy."

...in the defense of democracy, which is at stake... I've made it clear that I believe America is at an inflection point. On those rare moments in history, when the decisions we make now determine our fate of our nation and the world for decades to come... nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy.

These statements suggest that if his opponent wins the election, it will lead to a series of events that ultimately threaten democracy. This slippery slope argument is used in conjunction with an appeal to fear, as it creates an emotional response of anxiety and dread about the potential consequences of the election outcome. By emphasizing the high stakes and the long-term impact of the decision, Biden aims to persuade the audience to support his position out of fear for the future of democracy.

The appeal to fear is employed to strengthen the impact of the slippery slope argument. By creating a sense of urgency and emphasizing the potential threat to democracy, Biden aims to evoke an emotional response from the audience, making them more likely to accept the slippery slope argument without critically examining the logical connections between the events.

This combination of fallacies is a powerful rhetorical tool, as it taps into the audience's emotions and creates a sense of impending danger, making it more difficult for them to assess the argument objectively. It is essential to recognize the presence of these fallacies and to carefully evaluate the evidence and reasoning behind the claims made.

Biden combines the above with a false dilemma fallacy.

America is going to have to choose... We have to decide: Do we still believe in honesty, decency, respect, freedom, justice and democracy.

Biden here presents a limited set of options, suggesting that supporting the Democratic ticket is the only way to preserve honesty, decency, respect, freedom, justice, and democracy, while a Trump win would threaten these values. This oversimplification ignores the possibility that both parties may have their own shortcomings in terms of democratic processes and principles.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have faced criticism for their actions and decisions that may be seen as undermining democratic values.

Democratic Party:

1. The selection of Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee without her having won delegates in an open election raises questions about the party's commitment to democratic processes and the importance of voter participation in the selection of candidates.
2. Accusations of "weaponizing the justice system" against political opponents and attempting to remove them from ballots, if true, would be undemocratic and a misuse of power.
3. The party has been criticized for its handling of primary elections, with some arguing that the process favors establishment candidates over grassroots movements.

Republican Party:

1. The events of January 6th, where supporters of then-President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, were a significant threat to American democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.
2. Some members of the party have perpetuated baseless claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, undermining public trust in the electoral process and democratic institutions.
3. Efforts to pass restrictive voting laws in various states, which disproportionately affect minority communities, have been seen as attempts to suppress voter turnout and limit access to the democratic process.

Both parties have faced accusations of gerrymandering, the practice of redrawing electoral districts to favor one party over another, which can lead to disproportionate representation and undermine the principle of fair elections.

Without implying any "equivalence" of the two sides, it is essential to recognize that neither party is immune to actions that may undermine democratic processes and principles. A commitment to democracy requires a consistent adherence to its values, regardless of political affiliation. It is crucial for both parties to prioritize transparency, accountability, and the protection of democratic institutions to ensure the long-term health and stability of the American political system.

We leave it to the reader to decide which party is the least threatening to democracy overall, but neither party is entirely beyond reproach, and the situation is not as simple as Biden implies.