Clinton-Trump Debate 'Logic-Checks'

Article by WN.com Correspondent Dallas Darling

If logic is about clear and coherent and effective thinking, and if the goal of a debate is to point out the inconsistencies and omissions of your opponent, then logic was the real loser in Monday night’s most watched (81 million Americans) televised debate.

To be sure, from Arguments of Outrage to Red Herrings and Scare Tactics, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump committed a number of logical fallacies.

Shouting Over Each Other to Personal Attacks

Arguments of Outrage were used by both candidates as they tugged on the audience’s fear while shouting over each other. Clinton, for instance, used emotional words to describe how her opponent would “destroy” the working classes with a “Trumped-Up Trickled Down Economics.”

Meanwhile, Trump claimed his opponent did not want to use “law and order” while warning of roaming gangs and listing thousands of murders.

Another illogical tactic was the Ad Hominem Fallacy, or when someone dismisses the question and attacks the person.

When asked about releasing tax returns, Trump claimed the FEC disclosed more about his returns than the IRS, and then attacked Clinton about her private email server. Clinton did the same in accusing her opponent as a racist and bigot and for “hanging around women” at beauty pageants.

Experts Say I’m Right and Non-Issues

The Uses and Abuses of Experts and Expertise were often utilized.

Not only did Clinton evoke her experience as Secretary of State, but claimed she came from a family where her father had to work, unlike her opponent, who inherited millions of dollars.

In the meantime, and in response to national security, Trump repeated how hundreds of generals and admirals had just endorsed him, including ICE and the Border Patrol.

The debate was filled with Red Herrings too.

What’s more, Lester Holt, the moderator who interrupted Trump 41 times, was the main culprit. Indeed, from asking Trump about non-issues, like being a Birther, which diverted attention from the real issues facing America, both candidates missed major points.

In other words, checking a candidate’s birth certificate is not racist, as Clinton said, but is required by law before an individual becomes president.

From Generalizations to Automatic Guilt

Even Post Hoc fallacies were abundant, in that, the candidates used simple explanations and sweeping and unfounded conclusions.

Trump’s “They’re using out country as a piggy bank to rebuild China” and the Obama Administration “doubled the nation debt,” leaves out so many factors that no explanation is needed. As for Clinton, she accused her opponent of “rooting for the housing crisis” and of “paying no taxes.”

Clinton was also a master politician in utilizing the Absence of Evidence fallacy. Indeed, she accused her opponent of not releasing tax returns for fear of exposing just how little wealth he has and paying no income tax.

Likewise, Trump claimed his opponent’s private email server as proof she was hiding shady busy dealings as Secretary of State. Again, the absence of evidence does not necessarily prove “guilt.”

Wishful Thinking and Faulty Convictions

Wishful Thinking was surprisingly used during the debate. To be sure, in observing the logic and behavior of both candidates, it was obvious they put a lot more trust in what they “want” to be true than in what they have sufficient evidence for.

Clinton, for instance claimed racial bias “was a problem for everyone.” What’s more, she accused her opponent of having “dire plans” for black communities. As for Trump, he claimed his economic plan would create 25 million jobs.

The debate logic-check list could be longer, like the Straw Man, Group Think, and Hasty Conclusion. But the Argument from Inexperience is the most important fallacy.

To be sure, both candidates belong to the One Percenters. Neither have they experienced the many hardships most Americans confront each day, whether it be poverty, crime and drug-ridden neighborhoods, foreclosures, declining wages or even war.

What’s more, it’s difficult to argue something one has never experienced, let alone understands. In fact, the unshakable conviction of rightness both candidates displayed, with regard to their policies, should be a cause of concern.

Meanwhile, if history is any indicator of how well the candidates will perform as president, another grave concern should be the biases and cultural baggage they brought to their incoherent arguments.

Dallas Darling (darling@wn.com)

(Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John’s Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com. You can read more of Dallas’ writings at www.beverlydarling.com and wn.com//dallasdarling.)