OPINION: Logical fallacies in the presidential debate

When asked why the Biden administration waited until an election year to implement asylum restrictions, Harris instead brought up another border reform bill that Republicans had failed to pass. She then moved on to talking about Trump’s rallies without addressing the original question.

“During his rallies, he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He talks about windmills causing cancer,” she said. “And what you’ll also notice is that people leave his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”

If her goal was to distract the hunting dogs – in this case Trump – by painting a fish on the trail and attacking Trump, then mission accomplished.

Appeal to ignorance

“They eat the dogs.” – Trump

In his response to Harris’ comment about rally attendance, Trump deviated even further from the original question the moderators had asked Harris. After dismissing her accusation and accusing her of paying her own audience members to attend her rallies, Trump again brought up the topic of immigration.

He claimed that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pets.

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs “when you argue that your conclusion must be true because there is no evidence against it,” according to Texas State University.

Moderator David Muir told Trump that, according to Springfield’s city manager, there were no credible reports of specific allegations of harm to pets.

“People on TV say, ‘My dog ​​was kidnapped and used for food.’ Maybe that’s what he said, and maybe that’s a good statement for a city manager,” Trump replied.

Since the city manager did not explicitly prove that no one ate dogs, Trump concluded that the claims made by the people on television must be true – thereby appealing to ignorance.

Ad hominem

“Tim Walz and I are both gun owners.” – Harris

The ad hominem fallacy can take different forms, depending on Scribbr. Put simply, an argument is directed against a person rather than the argument itself – think of telling someone they are wrong because they are ugly.

When Trump accused Harris of planning to take away everyone’s guns, Harris contradicted her accusation.

“Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” she said. “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away.”

It’s debatable what kind of ad hominem fallacy this is, but it’s clear that she’s arguing that she won’t perform a certain action because of who she is. Although her two statements are loosely connected, it’s not automatically true that she won’t take someone’s gun away just because she owns one.

Lauren Lifke is editor-in-chief of the Daily Lobo. Reach her at [email protected] or @lauren_lifke