Ad Hominem Argument - Essay Example

An ad hominem argument is one in which a person attacks the other party rather than addressing the argument and the question itself. It is an effective way of ignoring the question asked and answering by blaming or criticizing the other party (Top Ten Logical Fallacies In politics, Web). This is a fallacy not because people claim that the argument is wrong but because the negative characteristics of people making the argument. This is a means through which people try to discredit the argument of the counter party by disclosing their negative traits. This type of a fallacy is highly common among politicians who, rather than commenting on the issue at hand, try to blame the other party in order to create hype especially among the media. This successfully distracts the opponent as well as the audience and media from the question or issue at hand. These personal comments might even affect a voter`s opinion about the opponent`s political position. One recent example of this fallacy is when President Obama, during his speech, said that “Gov. Romney "would ask the middle class to pay more in taxes to give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year. Its like Robin Hood in reverse. Its Romney Hood" (Scott Neuman, Web). It is clear that President Obama is trying to discredit this opponent Gov. Romney by saying that he would introduce such a system in which the people belonging to the middle class would be taxed higher and people who are rich would benefit. This statement might turn the middle class people against Gov. Romney. As a response to this statement, Gov Romney said that, “"Weve been watching the president say a lot of things about me and my policies, and theyre just not right. And if I were to coin a term, it would be Obamaloney” (Scott Neuman, Web). This is a clear example of an Ad Hominem fallacy as both the opponents are trying to damage the reputation of each other in order to gather high voted from the public. They tried to comment on the policies and even gave each other names like Romney hood and Obamaloney. Analysis of Argumentum Ad Logicam is a type of fallacy in which a person creates a disagreeable argument before disclosing the actual argument as it is easier to defeat the real case. It is also known as a straw man fallacy as a person creates a sketch of the opponent in his mind (straw man) in order to counter the opponent`s argument. An example of this fallacy is president Obama`s recent statement against Gov. Romney in which he says that, “ "Were certainly not going to follow Mr. Romneys lead and go back to the days when women didnt have control of their own health care choices" (Scott Neuman, Web). This is a an Ad Logicam fallacy as he is trying to connect with the past, the time when women did not have control over any choices including health care and were not given equal rights in the society. By doing this, he is trying to tell the public that his policies are far better than Gov. Romney`s by creating a dramatic impact in order to influence them. In an Ad Logicam fallacy, the argument is usually logical in the sense that the fallacy is base on facts. In the example provided above Obama’s statement, it clear that the issue of women discrimination in society in the past has been used to hit our on Gov Romney’s policies. It is evident that the fallacy does not necessarily bank on whether the belief is correct. Obama’s statement elicits emotions and sympathy, which in response is a cornerstone in attacking Gov Romney’s policies. The public in this case is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the policies presented by Gov Romney’s are poorly crafted. Although the policy issues cannot be generalized, the use of fallacy gives an insinuation that all Gov Romney’s policies do not consider public interest. Argumentum Ad Terrorem is another type of fallacy in which a person tries to gain support by using fear in order to influence their beliefs and ideas. In the past, many politicians have used this type of a fallacy and influenced people to vote for them. An everyday example of this type of a fallacy is when people especially your family advises you not to smoke as you can die through excessive smoking. This is Ad Terrorem as they are trying to tell you to stop smoking by involving the fear of death. President Obama`s following statement portrays this fallacy. "Last month, we found out that Gov. Romney expects you, middle-class families, to pick up the tab for this big tax cut. ... [Economists say] Gov. Romneys tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of $2,000" (Scott Neuman, Web). He is trying to alert the public, especially the middle class families of US, that if they vote for Gov. Romney then they would have to suffer as his tax plan would place a burden on them as taxes would increase by approximately $2000. This way the President is trying to gain support of the middle class families by disapproving the policies of Gov. Romney and telling the people that his policies will give everyone an equal opportunity. The general assumption in this fallacy is that the target audience thinks in a rational manner. Some evidence is usually provided to support the argument. This is well presented in the case above showing past statistics on the issue at hand. This puts the public with minimum choice but to believe in the repercussions that are advanced by the argument. When Obama uses this fallacy, Gov. Romney has limited means of counteracting the accusation leveled against his polices. This is because the fear had been instilled among the middle class families is so server. Another fallacy, commonly used by politicians, is called post hoc ergo propter hoc which is Latin for “after this therefore before this”. This states that any event that follows a particular event is caused because of this event. This is a false correlation because two events that occur simultaneously do not mean the second one depends on the first event. Under this fallacy, it is believed that the conclusion must depend on the order of the events and all other factors, which may affect the conclusion, are ignored. Governor Romney passed a statement against President Obama, which clearly indicates this fallacy. He said that, “We have fewer jobs under President Obama. Then theres unemployed and underemployed. Thats gone up, thats in red, because thats a bad direction. Then we have the unemployment rate, thats bad too, thats why thats in red" (Scott Neuman, Web). This clearly shows that because these events happened during President Obama`s rule, he is trying to blame it on his policies. There might be some other factors, which triggered these events, but he is trying to blame the president for it in order to attract the public. The fallacy is applicable where persons are not given adequate time to defend themselves. This provides a situation where blames on an individual are cumulative. The logic of the argument is always in doubt but the public usually take little time to critically analyze the issue at hand, in most cases, they end up believing the argument. Governor Romney in his accusations avoids the main issue of policies. This argument is biased since Obama’s presidency was the main cause of unemployment as presented. The fallacy can be used to deceive the public especially when the accused integrity is in question. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, also known as the argument from authority, is a fallacy in which a person tries to include the name of a well-known personality in order to give a boost to their argument or to attract the followers of that particular personality. During political campaigns, many groups try to include the names of former presidents or other well-known personalities to enhance their speech or their point of view. This has always worked out in their favors because of the notion that the third parties are credible. An example is when President Obama said that, “You do not have to take my word for it. Just today, an independent, nonpartisan organization ran all the numbers on Gov. Romneys plan. This wasnt my staff. This wasnt something we did. An independent group ran the numbers" (Scott Neuman, Web). The president is trying to use the fallacy of Ad Verecundiam in this statement. He is trying to involve a third party, who may or may not be biased, in order to influence the views of the public and gather as much public support as possible. President Obama is very categorical on the matter and plays an independent role to evaluate his performance. It is obvious that the public do not take much time to analyze the mentioned references. It is however, suicidal if the third parties portray some kind of collusion with the person in question. This is the reason why the politician always show that the personality to earnest support from are independent in all aspects In conclusion, through all these tactics, politicians can influence public views as part of their campaigning. It is a trend that is inevitable in the current political dispensation. Read More