Open the link to the list of political speeches by G. W. Bush and J. Kerry, read some of the speeches and identify fallacies used by the author. Explain what is wrong in the reasoning used by them. Maksym Piekut (24665) Browsing through some of John Kerry’s speeches I have managed to spot a few common reasoning fallacies.
The following quote suggests an appeal to tradition fallacy: “This is not the way we do things in America. Here in America, we don’t sacrifice science for ideology.We are a land of discovery – a place where innovators and optimists are free to dream and explore. Where government encourages creativity and entrepreneurship instead of stifling it. Where we’re always searching for the next breakthrough, always pushing the boundaries of our knowledge.
And that’s why we must lift the ban on stem cell research”- John Kerry assumes the traditional ways of handling things as best for the country . whereas the effectiveness of stem cell method shouldn’t be determined by whether it fits the traditional ways.Another quote shows a hasty generalization fallacy as Kerry assumes that him and John Edwards, will instantly change many aspects for better- “I want you to hold on, and keep faith, because come next January, when John Edwards and I are sworn into office, we’re going to create a new anniversary – one that will be a cause for celebration. We’re going to lift the ban on stem cell research. We’re going to listen to our scientists and stand up for science.We’re going to say yes to knowledge, yes to discovery, and yes to a new era of hope for all Americans” As we know even if a politician is very successful no one is able to put things in motion that fast.
I have also found the clearest possible example of personal attack on George W. Bush in one of Kerry’s speeches. It goes as follows : “As the President likes George W. Bush. And the W stands for wrong. Wrong choices, wrong direction, and wrong leadership for America.
And this election all comes down to one decision: Do we want four more years of wrong choices, or do we want to move America in a new direction? ” You can see that he associates George Bush with being wrong, based on no logical argumentation. This is a clear example of trying to push the audience to his side. John Kerry makes another fallacy that I think can be understood in terms of slippery slope: “It’s a twenty to thirty percent national sales tax -- on top of the state and local sales taxes that Americans already pay.This tax will hurt small business, it will hurt jobs, and it will hit the pocketbooks of those who need tax relief the most” It’s nothing more than a vague prediction about the effects of sales tax, while actually we don’t know if introducing this particular solution changes things for better or worse.
Now it’s time for some of George W. Bushes reasoning fallacies one of them I found in the speech about terrorism: “If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful lives? Laughter. ) Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own. By facing these terrorists far away, our military is making the United States of America more secure” this would be an example of appeal to ridicule, Bush is simply mocking the claim about Zarqawi, which doesn’t prove he’s right about what would happen in this hypothetical situation. Another example of Bushe’s reasoning fallacy:” I'm proud of my record. My opponent seemed to want to avoid talking about his.
My record is one of lowering taxes, reforming education, providing prescription drugs to seniors, improving our homeland protection and waging an aggressive war against the terrorists. The Senator's record is 20 years of out-of-the-mainstream votes, without many significant reforms or results. ” Bush attacks Senator Kerry by claiming that he is avoiding responsibility for his actions, therefore he makes his record look inferior, also he addresses Kerry’s mistakes only, not mentioning benefits- this might I think be regarded as a form of personal attack. George W.Bush attempts to convince the audience that Senator Kerry is unable to do what he promised by appealing to their emotions, also to common practice by saying: “There is a gap. There is a gap between what he's promised and what he can deliver.
And guess who usually gets to fill the gap? AUDIENCE: We do! THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you do. But we're not going to let him tax you. We're going to win on November the 2nd. The President tries to evoke negative emotions in the audience by giving them the unpleasant feel that when they stand for Kerry’s tax approach they are the ones who will suffer.Taking all things into consideration, I think it is a hard task for politicians to avoid fallacies when addressing the audience.
When you want your words to be powerful and destructive for your opponent, you tend to say things out of the blue- and that’s normal. What one should do analyzing those speeches in terms of who to choose? - is to grasp the general plans of the specific candidate, visible benefits, rather than clinging to some fallacy and thinking of it as an indicator of being unreasonable. Personally, I prefer Kerry’s argumentation although it’s almost as fallacious as Bushe’s, in general it seems to me as less hasty.
