- Logical Fallacy in Presidential debate
Lester Holt, the first presidential debate's moderator, asked Donald Trump about a comment he had made earlier about Hillary Clinton lacking the presidential look. Donald Trump replied, "She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the Stamina. I said she doesn't have the stamina. I don’t believe she does have the Stamina." Trump's reply is the Argumentum Ad Hominem also known as a personal attack or poisoning the well. The errors in the inferential reasoning by Trump led him to assume that since Hillary Clinton is a woman, she could not negotiate America's trade deals. It was an attack on Hillary as a woman and did not mean that she cannot make trade deals. Hillary Clinton's fell victim to Trump's assertion as he was using her gender to determine her capabilities. On the question of why he said that Hillary Clinton did not have the president's look and stamina, Trump did not answer the question directly. Instead, he repeated four times that Clinton did not have the Stamina. When saying this, Trump appeared angry; Clinton looked composed; the Moderator appeared intrigued, and the audience cheered and jeered.
The candidate did not practice high-level reasoning. He could have given a substantial reason as to why he believed Clinton does not have the Stamina to be president. Instead, he blurted it out and had to cover it up with lies. When he could not justify his statement, he stated that Clinton needs to have the stamina to negotiate trade deals. The information was not true since as the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had visited than 112 countries and negotiated Trade deals. Defeated, Trump stated that the deals were a bad experience. He should have, however, investigated his claims and base his point on facts. For instance, he should have built up the argument by stating that Clinton failed as the Secretary of State. After that, he should have given specific examples of her failure and then conclude than since she had failed in those duties, she does not have the stamina to become president.
- Wag the Dog
Part 1: The anarchy myth
The film is a comic but has important lessons for the audience. It particularly helps in the understanding of the anarchy myth. The myth posits that anarchy is what the states make of it. It continues that people ask the wrong question when they ask who is the author of anarchy. Instead, they should look into the circumstances that make them believe that there is an architect of the anarchy. In the movie, the states believe that there is anarchy because they are looking for the author and not the circumstances. As a result, the Americans and other citizens across the world think that someone is out to harm them, which gives the president the time to redeem his bad reputation. Had the people concentrated on the circumstances, they would have most likely identified the president and the stage-managed war.
The anarchy myth proposes that anarchy has no logic as opposed to the neorealist and the neoliberal views on the same, which see logic in anarchy. Further, the anarchy myth argues that anarchy is what the states makes out of it and that it is highly unpredictable. However, the neorealist approach perceives that the logic of anarchy is structural and eventually leads to conflict. The actors, therefore, have to increase power so that they can survive the anarchy. The neoliberal view also believes in the logic of anarchy, but it is constructive logic and not destructive as argued by the neorealist approach. The anarchy can, therefore, be eliminated through social learning and cooperation of the involved states.
Social constructivism in the film is seen when the people are discussing the war in Albania. They trust each other's perception which promotes the increased fear of the war in Albania. The people, thus become paranoid and instead come and are grateful to the president for stopping the ‘war.'
Norms in the movie are demonstrated by the people’s faith in the media. The Citizens do not question anything the media peddles, which increases their gullibility.
The values of the media are highly degraded in the film. The media, which is supposed to be the public’s watchdog colludes with the president and the spin doctor to stage manage a war so that they can restore the president’s tainted name. The actions particularly disregard the values of integrity and credibility which are paramount in the industry.