I'm still not, quite sure why they are called "logical fallacies."

Today, I'll be discussing logical fallacies. In this Blog and the next, I pull quotes from Obama's speech in Osawatomie, Kansas on Tuesday. Each quote demonstrates a different logical fallacy. This is not to say anything negative about Obama. In fact, this is an incredible speech. I may not agree with all of his politics, but I can certainly appreciate a well-written piece of literature.


That being said, let's dive right in. Shall we? We will start with a fairly basic fallacy, Bandwagon:

That is the height of unfairness.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  (Applause.)  And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me.  (Laughter.)  So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans.  And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

Essentially, Obama is telling us if all these people agree, we should too. Thus, we have Bandwagon. Let's move on to one that is a little harder to recognize. Here is a little something rhetorists like to call Begging the Question:

Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.  But we don’t have unlimited resources.  And so we have to set priorities.  If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.  We have to make choices. 

This statement is a web of circular reasoning. The evidence he uses sandwiches the point he is trying to make. He says we have to set priorities because if we had unlimited resources, we wouldn't have to set priorities, but we don't have unlimited resources, so we do have to set priorities. See how that works? Then, he does it again! He says we need to set priorities, and tax codes that reflect our values will prioritize the growth of our middle class, so we have to make choices (prioritize.) Throughout this statement, his reason for needing set priorities is we need priorities. If you're a visual person like I am, let's just say it's like a venn diagram of reasoning. 


Now we have our final example for today, the False Dilemma. Hit it Obama...

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time.  This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.  Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

This example is pretty self-explanatory. Basically, Obama is giving an either/or situation as reasoning. In this argument, there are no exceptions - either a change is made or the middle class is forever screwed. This is a false dilemma at its finest, and a perfect way to close out the first part of my discussion on logical fallacies.