Hilary Clinton is widely known for her ability to avoid giving clear answers to questions. She's even been named a "masterful dodgeball player" by the Washington Free Beacon. Her ability to utilize the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, combined with her enthusiastic and uplifting tones, frequently win the support of audiences, tricking them into thinking that she has answered a question-- especially audience members who don't take the time to actually evaluate her arguments.When looked at closely, it seems as though Hilary may not be as qualified of a candidate as she should be. One example of Clinton's use of circular reasoning was on the October 13th Democratic Debate on CNN. When attempting to justify and defend her flip-flopping positions, she first diverted attention from the question, accusing all the presidential candidates of changing position at some point, and then went on to make the fallacious statement, "I never took a position on keystone until I took a position on keystone." This argument is fallacious because it's conclusion is used as evidence to prove the conclusion itself. Therefore, this argument literally cannot go anywhere-- using this tactic, Clinton is able to avoid answering the question while offering a conclusion that makes it appear as though she did. These subtle flaws in candidates' arguments are extremely important to keep en eye out for, especially when so much power is at stake.
It amazes me the number of logical fallacies used by politicians to further their argument. Now that we have learned about logical fallacies, I am always on the lookout for them. I really enjoyed your post, I think you provided great background on Hillary's use of circular reasoning and I loved the dodgeball player comparison. Do you think that Hillary's circular reasoning, in the example you provided, is effective? I often think they are because I find myself forgetting the true question that was asked of Clinton while listening to her speak. Great job!
ReplyDelete