|
This is nothing new, but it amazes how the entire repertoire of right-wing debate tactics is based on logical fallacies. ad populum arguments (appeal to the people), red herrings, circular arguments, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, slippery slope arguments, etc. Everyone makes this mistakes once and awhile, but it seems that most conservative pundits today (Hannity, Coulter, etc) use these religiously.
For instance:
When Hannity keeps reiterating that Kerry only has about ten vets aupporting his claim, while the other side has 64 in the ads, and 250 in the book:
The truth of an argument is not dependent on how popular it is. Truth is determined by facts and evidence.
When Hannity repeats incessantly about how the SBVFT have a right to be heard, and then he scoffs at the idea of them being liars, because they're vets:
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. Goebbels taught us that. Saying it louder doesn't make it any more true.
John Kerry and his BOB are vets. Is rassman a liar?
You get the idea. The 9-11 comission report, Kerry being a flip-flopper, his defense record. All based on flimsy logic. My question is,
WHY DON'T MORE PEOPLE SEE THIS?
|