What comes to mind when you consider persuasive speech? The concept of persuasion may conjure up images of propaganda as well as problems with manipulation, deception, deliberate bias, bribery, and even violence. However, each component’s relationship to persuasion is unique. Speaking of persuasion, the ability to persuade others is essential to winning political arguments and speeches. These arguments include several large fallacies. In this article, we will explore different examples of logical fallacies in political speeches.
- 1 6 Types And Examples Of Logical Fallacies In Political Speeches
- 2 1. Red Herring Fallacy
- 3 2. Strawman Fallacy
- 4 3. Slippery Slope Fallacy
- 5 4. Begging the Question Fallacy
- 6 5. Post Hoc Fallacy
- 7 6. False Dilemma
- 8 How To Avoid Fallacies And Speak Ethically
- 9 Final Thoughts
- 10 FAQs
6 Types And Examples Of Logical Fallacies In Political Speeches
Politicians have grown so used to hearing blatant political lies that we may be less skilled at spotting rhetorical tricks. Let’s look at some of the most prevalent informal logical fallacies, which are arguments that appear to be solid but are founded on weaknesses in logic.
1. Red Herring Fallacy
A Red Herring argument is one that shifts the focus away from the main topic and onto a different one where the speaker feels more at ease and secure.
For instance, it may be true that the minimum wage increases, but the underlying issue is the elimination of burdensome rules from the government that prevents firms from expanding and paying their employees higher wages.
2. Strawman Fallacy
A strawman argument is when an opponent misinterprets the perspective purposely. It provides the speaker with a quick (and incorrect) target to take down.
Example: Because they support abortion on demand, pro-abortion activists oppose a waiting period and ultrasound requirement. Abortion on demand also means that no consideration is given to the health of the mother or the unborn child.
3. Slippery Slope Fallacy
A variation of a Red Herring is a Slippery Slope argument. This is a claim that a policy that moves just a little bit in one way will trigger a series of actions that will produce significant change.
As an illustration, if background checks are mandated for all gun sales, including private transactions at gun shows, the federal government will be able to compile a registry of gun owners and eventually seize privately held weapons.
4. Begging the Question Fallacy
An argument Begging the Question is one in which the conclusion is implied in one of the premises, and that premise is not backed up by additional evidence. It starts and finishes in the same place, hence the term circular reasoning.
Because of the fundamental nature of our Second Amendment rights, gun control measures are prohibited.
5. Post Hoc Fallacy
In a post hoc argument, the speaker confuses correlation with causation, arguing, for instance, that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second. Is there a claim about education reform that is not post hoc?
For example, A Latin-taught school, for instance, would increase student achievement because Latin-taught schools had higher test scores.
6. False Dilemma
Always have more than two options available. For instance, this person could decide to travel back to their starting point after turning around.
All of us have encountered this fallacy. One of the two possibilities is significantly worse than the other. The choice must be made based on which option is the lesser evil, it is then stated or strongly implied. Possible third possibilities are not included.
For instance, Either we let dogs vote or we descend into a dictatorship—the decision is clear-cut!
There is a tonne of different alternatives, as you might imagine. Perhaps democracy can be maintained without, for instance, granting voting rights to animals. However, by just offering two alternatives, the speaker is attempting to force you to agree with a viewpoint they already believe.
How To Avoid Fallacies And Speak Ethically
When putting together your arguments in a speech intended to persuade, keep honesty and integrity in mind. As you present your document, you will establish your ethos, or credibility, in the eyes of your audience by showing that you have thoughtfully considered other points of view and that you are aware of the complexity.
Be careful not to embellish the truth or gather the evidence solely to support your position; instead, support the claim with evidence. There should be no room for trickery, pressure, deliberate bias, manipulation, or bribery in your speeches intended to persuade.
Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning or logic. You should not use fallacies in your argument as they undermine both your credibility and the integrity of your message. We have discussed some examples of logical fallacies in political speeches in detail. Hope you like this article and gain the utmost knowledge from us.
How can you avoid fallacies?
Use of irrelevant, false, falsified, misrepresented, or twisted evidence to support arguments or claims is strictly prohibited. Purposely employ flawed, deceptive, or illogical logic. Falsely present yourself as knowledgeable or an “expert” on a subject.
How does critical thinking help with fallacies?
Discussions in which the parties may not agree on a scenario or one element is attempting to persuade another element to make a decision indicate that the foundation of these fallacies depends on critical thinking. The goal of this kind of argument is to provide evidence in favor of a particular conclusion.
How do you solve logical fallacies?
You should first recognize the weakness in thinking that the use of a logical fallacy entails, then bring it out and explain why it’s a problem, or offer a compelling counterargument that implicitly refutes it.
Why is it important to recognize fallacies in a speech?
An essential talent is knowing how to tell a true argument from a faulty one. It’s an important component of critical thinking, and it can prevent you from believing fake news. False conclusions may lead you to make judgments that you later come to regret if you are deceived by a logical error.