Walz criticizes Donald Trump's economic policies, highlighting the increase in the national debt and the trade deficit, but sometimes resorts to fallacious arguments like straw man and causal oversimplification. Meanwhile, Walz highlights Harris' middle-class focused proposals like housing and child tax credits, though arguably relies too heavily on appealing to the authority of experts without explaining a concrete economic plan. And, just like Vance in this same segment, he never answers the main question posed to him by the moderator.

1. red herring • Tim Walz does not directly answer the moderator's question about how he would pay for his proposals without ballooning the deficit. Instead, he shifts the focus to the economic policies of Donald Trump and the fairness of the tax system.

MODERATOR: The Wharton School says your proposals will increase the nation's deficit by $1.2 trillion. How would you pay for that without ballooning the deficit?

TIM WALZ: Yeah. Thank you. And Kamala Harris and I do believe in the middle class because that's where we come from... We both grew up in that. We understand. So those of you out there listening tonight, you're hearing a lot of stuff back and forth... Donald Trump made a promise, and I'll give you this. He kept it. He took folks to Mar-a-Lago. He said, "You're rich as hell. I'm going to give you a tax cut."

This response could be considered a red herring, as it avoids the moderator's specific question and instead introduces a different topic. By focusing on Trump's policies and the tax system, Walz distracts from the issue of how to pay for his own proposals without increasing the deficit.

2. questionable cause with loaded language • Walz assumes that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second.

Kamala Harris' day one was Donald Trump's failure on COVID that led to the collapse of our economy.

COVID caused widespread economic problems around the globe, irrespective of governmental policies. The phrase "collapse of our economy" is a bit emotionally charged, rather than being an objective description of what happened at that time.

3. straw man with slippery slope • This argument misrepresents Donald Trump's economic plan by giving the impression that he is proposing a 20% consumption tax on everything. This exaggerates the potential negative effects of his plan -- similar to the way Harris argued against Trump in the presidential debate last month.

Now he's proposing a 20% consumption or sales tax on everything we bring in. Everyone agrees, including businesses. It would be destabilizing it. It would increase inflation and potentially lead to a recession.

Furthermore, this argument suggests that a proposed 20% tax would inevitably lead to destabilization, increased inflation, and a recession, without providing evidence for this inevitable progression. It assumes that one policy change will lead to a worst-case scenario without considering other factors that could prevent such outcomes.