“Everyone agrees that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at will. An impeachment process in search of a crime.” Accident (“a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid”)Ĭommitted when a general rule is cited and then misapplied to a particular case whose “accidental” circumstances render the rule inappropriate. “The American people see the spectacle for what it is. Therefore, we should thank President Trump for his stalwart effort to fight corruption.” “Trump is requesting that a foreign power go on CNN and announce that it is launching an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens in return for a much sought-after meeting at the White House. Occurs when the evidence entails a different conclusion from the one actually drawn. To find him guilty of quid pro quo would only add to his woes.” Missing the Point (“ignoratio elenchi”) He was even the subject of a Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election for nearly two years. “The President has been maligned by Never Trumpers since the day he took office. So therefore, it can’t be that wrong.”Īppeal to Pity (“argumentum ad misericordiam”)Ĭommitted when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the listener. But you Democrats did not provide military aid under Obama. “ Tu quoque” (Latin, meaning “you too”) (discrediting an argument by pointing out the hypocrisy of the arguer): “You say withholding military aid is wrong.Circumstantial (discrediting an argument by invoking the circumstances of the arguer): “Democrats never got over the fact that this new guy who’s never been in this town, never been in politics, this new guy is shaking this place up and that drives them crazy” (Jim Jordan).President Trump, conspicuously absent from the hearings, and therefore not governed by those rules, has turned the ad hominem abusive into a virtual art form, calling the majority chair, Adam Schiff, “human scum.” Abusive: Abuse against the witness is not allowed by House rules (though Jim Jordan’s tirades come pretty close).Sometimes this is divided into three separate fallacies: Argument Against the Person (“argumentum ad hominem”)Ĭommitted when the arguer attempts to win the acceptance of their argument by attacking the arguer and not the actual argument at hand.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |