Fallacies
Comment
What are some examples of these arguments from supporters of the administration?
False Dilemma
False Dilemma: (a.k.a. false dichotomy, either-or fallacy) a manipulative tactic to coerce a choice by making the alternative seem morally or practically unacceptable, framing it as a personal failing rather than a logical necessity. Breakdown: (1) present only two options and imply that only one of two extreme possibilities exist (2) present one of the options as the only good path (3) label or frame the alternative as bad, flawed or wrong. Example: You’re either with us, or you’re against us.
Whataboutisms
Whataboutisms: a diversionary tactic that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by highlighting their hypocrisy or the wrongdoing of another party, typically starting with the phrase “what about…”. It falsely suggests that since no one is completely blameless, all criticism is hypocritical and can be dismissed. The goal is not to have a constructive debate, but to muddy the waters.
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem: the debate tactic of invalidating someone’s argument because they cannot draw something from memory is a form of an ad hominem fallacy. The essence of this tactic is to attack the person, rather than the substance of their argument. Attack on character/ability: The tactic shifts the focus away from the topic and onto a personal trait—the opponent’s inability to draw from memory. This artistic or memory-retrieval skill has no bearing on the validity of their actual argument. False relevance: It creates a false sense of relevance by implying that a person’s lack of a specific, irrelevant skill (drawing) proves their argument is weak. For example, a person does not need to be able to draw a perfect map of a country to be correct about its political history. Undermining credibility: The goal is to undermine the opponent’s overall credibility and distract the audience from the actual points being debated. By mocking their artistic skills, the attacker frames them as generally incompetent, hoping that the audience will transfer that judgment to their position in the debate.
Gish Galloping
Gish Galloping: a deceptive and unethical maneuver that relies on presenting so many arguments in such a short time that the opponent cannot possibly respond to them all; speaking quickly to overwhelm an opponent and avoid counterargument.
Red Herring
Red Herring: to divert from the topic for distraction. It involves introducing an irrelevant or misleading argument to shift attention away from the main issue, effectively creating a distraction or smokescreen to confuse or mislead the audience. The new information is usually attention-grabbing or emotionally charged. In a debate, they will pivot to a controversial issue to rally their base and change the subject.