Trump asks why Harris hasn't done more in the last 3-1/2 years
Analyzing the article
ABC News
Our Analysis: 4 Fallacies
So, she just started by saying she's going to do this, she's going to do that, she's going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn't she done it? She's been there for 3 1/2 years. They've had 3 1/2 years to fix the border. They've had 3 1/2 years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. Why hasn't she done it? She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful white house, go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. But you haven't done it.
Trump validly questions why Harris did not implement her promised policies during her 3.5 years in office. However, his broader attacks employ fallacies like ad hominem and appeal to emotion, instead of reasoned critiques backed by evidence.
1. ad hominem • This statement attacks the character of the opposing candidate rather than addressing their policies or arguments.
The worst president, the worst vice president in the history of our country.
Trump provides no criteria for ranking Biden and Harris "worst", leaving this a simple ad hominem.
2. weak man • Trump focuses on more vulnerable positions that Harris has held in the past, ignoring that these are not reflective of her current positions.
You believe in things like we're not going to frack. We're not going to take fossil fuel. We're not going to do, things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not.
This fails to address the core of Harris' arguments on energy or any other topics of the debate.
3. appeal to fear • Trump again attempts to evoke fear in the audience by suggesting that the country is on the brink of a devastating war.
We're going to end up in a third World War. And it will be a war like no other because of nuclear weapons, the power of weaponry.
Even with what is going on Ukraine, there are a variety of checks and balances in place that make Trump's prediction unlikely. Meanwhile he provides no explanation of why it would supposedly be inevitable.
4. appeal to ridicule • Trump attempts to discredit Biden and Harris by suggesting that they are incompetent and ridiculed by other nations.
We're being laughed at all over the world. All over the world, they laugh, I know the leaders very well. They're coming to see me. They call me. We're laughed at all over the world.
Trump used appeal to ridicule a few times in this and the last debate (and Harris did so once). It is a fallacy in every case. The existence of ridicule, even when it exists, is not proof that someone is wrong.
References
- Donald Trump (2024, Sep 10). Trump's closing statement of the Presidential Debate of Sep. 10th, 2024.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542
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