# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/8ULR68LTmbw

Even though the Doctor looks pretty professional, we do not know if he is a legitimate Doctor or if he's just an actor. Colgate uses false authority because the Doctors are normally not fully qualified to be Doctors. Summary If you have bad dental hygiene, use Colgate and it will fix everything. Gael Garcia

# data[].attributes.body
During the debate over artificial intelligence between Jack Ma and Elon Musk held in Shanghai, China in August of 2019, both sides used various fallacies in their arguments. The fallacies most persistently used throughout the debate are the appeal to fear, false dichotomy, distorting facts, and the authority fallacy. Both sides constantly appeal to fear, such as when Musk claims that AI’s rate of improvement will make it either indistinguishable from reality or that it will lead to civilization’s end. Musk uses this particular claim This statement also falls under the category of a false dichotomy, since it presents only two options, as well as a slippery slope fallacy, as it claims that one thing- the rate of improvement- will lead to another- the options of the false dichotomy. Ma, later in the debate, gives his view of going to Mars and also appeals to fear for his argument when he claims that it will be a one way trip. He plays to the fear of not being able to return to one’s home to support his viewpoint of Mars not being appealing. Ma also distorted facts in support of his arguments. This occurs when Ma presents incorrect statistics, claiming: “99.99% of the predictions that human beings had in history about the future are all wrong,” and later when he changes one of Musk’s claims to: “...humans can never create another animal smarter than humans,” when Musk was in reality claiming that humans have created computers and comparing the difference in their levels of intelligence. The last fallacy, the authority fallacy, was exclusively present in one side of the debate, that side being the one of Ma. With one of the first statements Ma made in the debate, he set himself up to be in a position to use the authority fallacy all throughout the course of the debate. He refers to AI as Alibaba intelligence, marking himself as a knowledgeable person of AI by being a co-founder of Alibaba Group. The use of his statistic would also be a use of the authority fallacy, as he in reality is not a historian, statistician, or any figure of authority on statistical history. Apart from the constantly used fallacies, there are also other fallacies used more scarcely. An example of this would be the Ma’s use of the straw man fallacy. During the portion of the debate focusing on education, Musk suggests that those receiving an education should learn as much as possible about AI and computers. Musk lists multiple reasons to validate his suggestion and creates a situation where taking his suggestion seems like a reasonable action. Ma, however, responds with, “A computer is just a toy,” and turns Musk’s argument into one with less logic so that his ideals- not worrying about AI- are easier to express with less competition. This debate and the fallacies within it made me realize that not even top executives are aware of all they claim to be and that more personal research is need to be able to void fallacies in everyday situations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jack Ma and Elon Musk hold debate in Shanghai

# data[].attributes.headline
Full Pepsi Commercial | SuperBowl 53 | 2019

# data[].attributes.subject
Full Pepsi Commercial | SuperBowl 53 | 2019

# data[].attributes.body
Juan Rodriguez (Per. 3)

This 2019 SuperBowl commercial is advertised with a load of fallacies: Ad Hominem, False equivalence, and Appeals to authority fallacy.
Ad Hominem: The very beginning of the commercial starts with a customer at a diner asking for a coke. The waiter asks if Pepsi is ok, rather than the coke, and a man from the table behind the girl starts yelling, confused about why the waiter had to ask if Pepsi was ok. He then argues that Pepsi is the best thing you’ve ever tasted as opposed to coke.
False equivalence: The same man who yelled, before making his claim, questions the waiter comparing many pleasant things to each other, those which aren’t even related to the product such as puppies and shooting stars to assume that Pepsi is just as good or better than said shooting star.
Appeals to authority: it appeals to the authority fallacy because it just so happens that the man who was arguing Pepsi to be the best thing you'd ever taste happens to be Steve Carell, a famously known actor from a comedy series. Two other celebrities, Cardi B and Lil Jon are shown consuming the advertised product. Therefore, if these widely known celebrities are enjoying and claim Pepsi is the greatest thing, you should also believe that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Full Pepsi Commercial | SuperBowl 53 | 2019

# data[].attributes.body
In the 2020 Presidential debate, Donald Trump and Joe Biden opposed their ideas and arguments on topics such as COVID, shutdowns, Ukraine/China, Immigration, Healthcare, etc. There are many Fallacies that are presented in this debate, such as:
Ad Hominem:
Throughout the interview, Joe Biden attacks Trump because of his characteristics of himself, and as president.
Slippery Slope:
Trump tells the audience if Biden was to become president, and terminate taxes, they will lose half of companies, and will suffer economic depression.
Appealing to Authority:
They are asked the benefits are wearing masks because of COVID, and Joe Biden refers to the head of the CDC, and in doing so will reduce the risk of COVID, while Trump argues of another doctor, said the opposite.
-aayala aparicio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Second 2020 Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden

# data[].attributes.headline
Raymond Mercedes Benz Ice Cream Commercial, Mario Quijada

# data[].attributes.subject
Raymond Mercedes Benz Ice Cream Commercial, Mario Quijada

# data[].attributes.body
In the commercial it is evident that the character Raymond does not have ice cream throughout his life.  He will not allow himself to have it either.  Towards the end of the video it compares to desire of ice cream, to the want of a Mercedes Benz.  This Mercedes’ ad utilizes that argument of analogy by comparing ice cream to a car.  They use this tactic by walking us through the stages of life, with the character Raymond.  Because Raymond has denied himself for so long of ice cream, the company argues that the viewer is denying himself/herself of a Mercedes Benz.  This is clear 50 seconds into the video when it says, “Don’t spend your whole life waiting.”  This ad is weak because the comparison of ice cream to a car has nothing in common with each other.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Raymond (Mercedes Benz/Ice Cream Commercial)

# data[].attributes.body
This Heinz ad is specifically using the authority fallacy to convince viewers into believing that their products make even "fancy" food more delicious. It begins with stating that the idea of this ad was first brought up by a popular English songwriter, Ed Sheeran, and by including this bit of information it causes people to believe that Heinz's products must be great if a popular songwriter decided to reach out and volunteer to make an ad for them. Then by including a narration of what Ed Sheeran wrote to them and being narrated by Ed Sheeran himself, it causes readers to believe the idea that he actually reached out first. The most important part of this ad would be the setting of a fancy restaurant in which Ed Sheeran proceeds to order a fancy meal and continues to bring out a ketchup bottle, from Heinz, to put on the food to make it even more delicious. By doing this, it generates the idea that Heinz products are so good that famous people carry one of the products wherever they go in order to make food more delicious than it already is. This commercial really makes me think about past fallacies that had convinced me to buy items that aren't very different to their similar counterparts.

- Angelica Sanchez, period 3

# data[].attributes.body
In the 2021, Nike and Spec Commercial, it advertises the "no excuses" mentality and the black and white fallacy. For instance, the appeal to emotion appears when a foreign language with a lower voice and that of it showing emptiness in the fields and such but none of them show up in the entire video and after the beep of phone a person wakes up in full Nike clothes along with a pair of Nike shoes and goes out to run. This and along with the fact that those lower voice announced that they were injured from the ankle, felt pain in the knee, have headaches, and along with that they have a presentation and such, but then the contrast shows up with a single person getting up in the dark to run which shows that even though he might be busy later he still leaves room to do his exercise or whatever he might want to accomplish. If you want to get, better go through the pain since it will allow you to progress, but if you use these then it will be your crutches. The use of satisfaction and proudness that people will feel or want to feel through seeing this video basically wants to get those two feeling through improving even though in reality one will be more likely headed to injury. But the company just wants to expand its brand "just do it" and that of surpassing one's limit for people to buy from them through gaining the anticipation of these people wanting to get better even if they hurt themselves because the commercial they saw also showcases that those that chose "excuses" won't show up to any competition or practice so they won't get better and the one's that get up early will get better and they see that the better person wears Nike. This showcases black and white fallacy in which you either get up and wear Nike to get better or you don't show up, so you don't deserve wearing the brand Nike. Nike associates its brand with winners through hard work which are the worthy people but the ones that don't do this aren't worthy. This means that people will mostly likely buy from their brand. The fallacies, that I found in this commercial made me realize that even though it might have a positive message, the companies still use these types of commercial to get the consumers to buy their product. These companies are smart because in my investigation in YouTube for a commercial, I found that most of them have different audience targets.

# data[].attributes.body
This 2002 commercial uses an appeal to emotions tactic to scare the customer into buying their product. At the start of the commercial a man is seen breaking into a couple's house while they are sleeping when suddenly a loud alarm goes off. The couple wakes up scared and then get a phone call from their security company, telling them that they notified the police. The commercial then switches to tell you about their product, which is Brink's Home security. Commercials such as this one try to appeal to the viewer's fears that they are vulnerable while sleeping and they offer their product as a solution to protect their family. Yes this product would help protect your family but, they use fear to get you to buy their product. Many commercials/advertisements try to appeal to the viewers emotions, whether that be fear, sadness, or any other emotion. I have seen many commercials that have tried to utilize this tactic to try and sell their product.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brinks Home Security (2002) Television Commercial

# data[].attributes.body
On February 15,2022 the Zoa energy drink super bowl LVI commercial was released. Starring Dwayne Johnson known as "The Rock". He is an actor, businessman, producer, and was a professional wrestler making him very known. In the opening scene of the commercial it shows him picking weights up and doing various exercises showing that he is being productive and choosing to get things done. It arouses the curiosity of the audience making them intrigued and wondering if they were to drink ZOA if they'd be as productive and be as fit as he is. Authority Fallacy is being used. For example he says," It's for the everyday warrior who chooses to be strong, to be healthy, to be positive, to be them all." Which tells the audience in order to be all those things the answer is to drink the ZOA energy drink. Which isn't backed up by evidence except for the 30 seconds of working out that they show to audience but does not essentially prove anything.

Overall, this commercial lacks credibility and does not prove anything at all because anyone can be healthy, positive, and strong without drinking this energy drink. I've also noticed that commercials use well-known faces to convince the audience of a product.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ZOA Energy Drink Super Bowl LVI Commercial

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 1.4 Critique an Article Jack in the Box "Junk in the Box" commercial (1997) (Arianna Rojas P.3)

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 1.4 Critique an Article Jack in the Box "Junk in the Box" commercial (1997) (Arianna Rojas P.3)

# data[].attributes.body
In 1997 a commercial for Jack in the box was aired. In the opening act Jack Box accompanied by the camera crew arrives at Brad Haley's house. They knock on Haley's front door as Jack asks for Mr. Brad Haley. Haley opens the door and angrily tells the visitor to relax. As soon as he spotted the camera, he asked, "Did I win anything?" Jack informed him that, according to his sources, he had criticized Jack in the Box as "Junk in the Box." There is an evident authority fallacy, as Jack also states, "I take matters into my own hands" as a mascot for the famous fast food restaurant Jack In The Box. As a person in a position of authority, he provides a fear-based statement. Suddenly angry with Jack, Haley tells him to "get lost" and slams the door on him. However, Jack pushes the door back open and offers to leave if Haley simply tries his food and apologizes. An unseen assistant attempts to hand him a bag of Jack in the Box food. In response, Haley shoves Jack, yelling, "I said beat it, clown!" before retreating to his home. Jack follows him inside, a black and white fallacy then emerges Jack states, “I've spent millions of dollars improving our kitchen to make our best burgers” here we see and hear how displeased he feels as he believes their food cannot be junk from how much money they spent and being into the mindset of only thinking that Haley can only agree, going so far as to chase Haley pin him down and make him take a bite out of their best burger and only letting go after saying he approves of the burger and referring it to tasty. Despite the advertisement's funny approach, it lacks credibility. It may cause a lack of trust among the audience watching if they have a different opinion concerning such issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jack in the Box "Junk in the Box" commercial (1997)

# data[].attributes.body
In the 2016 presidential debate both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were asked various questions in regards to the second ammendment and gun control. While the debate continued the AD Hominem Attack and Red Herring Fallacies came up.

AD Hominem Attack:

-Criticizing Donald Trump because he is being supported by the NRA and using “millions of dollars” against Hillary

Red Herring:

-When Hillary answered the question she stated that she lived in Arkansas for 18 years and represented New York, which is irrelevant information that distracts the audience from the main point

-Hillary discusses what she would do to stop the deaths from guns

-Trumps veers off topic by stating that Chicago has “the toughest laws and you have tremendous gun violence”

Overall, these fallacies allow me to see that many political leaders tend to veer off from the topic in discussion and hardly ever answer the original questions asked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Third Presidential Debate Highlights | Clinton, Trump on 2nd Amendment, Guns

# data[].attributes.body
On June 20 2022, ABC News invited Christine Brennen, a columnist to touch upon the contradicting case towards Trans women participating in international swimming competitions with women due to their transition. This topic was brought to light when Lia Thomas a trans women on the women's international swim team was competing and became disqualified when it was known that she was trans.Throughout the video, Brennen incorporates the usage of logic and many fallacies to persuade the viewer that it is justifiable for trans women to be excluded from competing with women unless their transition is not before the age of 12(before male puberty)due to their advantage of increased/higher levels of hormones.The fallacies included by Brennen were bandwagon fallacy, correlation/causation fallacy, black and white, bandwagon and slothful induction fallacy. Throughout the video, it is shown how Brennen changes her thoughts from stating how "everyone" is supportive of trans women, when in reality everyone is not \due to many arguing scientifically how it its unfair for Lia to compete with other women leading to Lias disqualification due to her transition. Overall Brennan relies on logic and science when discussing this issue.

Black and white fallacy:
56sec-1 min12 sec
Brennon states this issue is seen with two view points especially in social media causing nuance, but there is a grey area to it overall by stating that many believe that trans women should only be allowed to compete if the transition is before age 12'

Bandwagon Fallacy:
it is shown how Brennen changes her thoughts from stating how "everyone" is supportive of trans women, when in reality everyone is not as various reasons were stated as to the further why of Leahs disqualification.

Correlation/causation Fallacy:
"good people can disagree and can also look at this while also keeping the humanity these wonderful athletes that have been going through so much and are just trying to compete may be where the open category may come in, but if this were to happen, its been proven that trans women do have advantages."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trans swimmers banned from competing in women’s events

# data[].attributes.body
Authority Appeal and False Analogy are presented in the Super Bowl 2015: Snickers Ad. Danny Trejo is a well-known American Actor and respected person. Trejo represents people that need to buy snickers. Trejo being in this Ad shows an Authoritative fallacy, and the Snicker candy bar will most likely attract more customers. By showing Trejo biting the chocolate bar and calming down, the audience receives the message that snickers help people calm down. Commercials like this give false hope to people with anxiety because it makes them believe that chocolate will help them. In reality, it will not help those people. They would only be giving money to the company. Ads like these make me realize that I cannot trust everything that I see. It is better to research to find out what is true or not.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bill Nye & Coca-Cola - Robert Castillo, Period 6

# data[].attributes.subject
Bill Nye & Coca-Cola - Robert Castillo, Period 6

# data[].attributes.body
In early April of this year, Coca-Cola and Billy Nye "The Science Guy" released this short informercial in which they appear to pledge towards production practices that lessen the severity of climate change. However, not only did this commercial appear as incredulous display of hypocrisy, but it also contains numerous logical fallacies that undermine the falsified message Coca-Cola attempted to convey. The most apparent fallacy in this video is the "appeal to authority fallacy"; while there is no doubt that Bill Nye proves himself as profusely knowledgeable in many branches of science, Coca-Cola simply desired for a household name to shill out their "pledge" to appear as credible. Other than this commercial, Nye has no previous affiliation with the Coca-Cola company, their production practices, or their decision making. Instead, Nye acts as a familiar face that the audience can draw familiarity from, making them more inclined to believe whatever he says. A far more credible spokesperson would be an actual climate expert or someone who proves to involve themselves in Coca-Cola’s material. Furthermore, Bill Nye’s explanation on pollution, waste, and recycling leaves the audience with an extremely un-nuanced understanding about the recycling process. His assertions on the effectiveness of recycling plastic fails to reveal the amount of water and energy it takes to process such material; greenhouse gases do not cease even when plastic is recycled. Therefore, the environmental pros of recycling plastics compared to other viable, easily processed material remains overstated. Another flaw in Coca-Cola’s video lies within a discrepancy of who actually conducts the recycling of polyethylene material. In fact, “The good people at the Coca-Cola company…” have no instrumental part in the recycling industry, except supplying the waste that the recycling plants intake (Nye). The producers of the informercial would like for the audience to believe as such, but there lies little proof or evidence that Coca-Cola is actively investing in industries that help solve the pollution dilemma that they are a cause of. Finally, the entire commercial is a massive “red herring”, with its bright and optimistic visuals to the underlying message of necessary consumer involvement. Nye’s statements throughout the short film work to dissolve all blame on Coca-Cola’s end and push the burden onto the purchasers, normal individuals who make up the audience for the video. The notion that the normal person’s inaction to change their habits has caused climate change presents itself severely within the “pledge”. While nearly all members of society can work harder to improve upon their wasteful habits, the corporations have an immense obligation to fix their habits too; the overproduction, overindulgence, and over-expansion of the Earth’s top companies has placed the planet in the aforementioned predicament in the first place. All in all, this “pledge” speaks a preposterous amount of nothing, the Coca-Cola company has and will continue to litter the world with un-degrading contaminants for years to come; their response proves that they expect everyone else to tidy up their mess. “A World Without Waste” proves impossible with Coca-Cola’s current practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Coca-Cola Company and Bill Nye Demystify Recycling

# data[].attributes.body
Only (14:19-15:57)
In this gender pronoun debate on the Dr. Phil show, Matt Walsh, a right-wing political commentator, proposes the question "What is a Woman?" to Addison (the last name not given), that advocates for teaching the true ideology of being non-binary. Matt Walsh presents the question, "What is a woman?" to Addison, that responds that he cannot answer the question because he does not identify as a woman but further explains that womanhood looks different for everybody disregarding the question itself. Addison's response is an example of the Red Herring fallacy. The Red Herring fallacy, in simple terms: avoids the issue by responding to the question by not addressing the points of the argument itself but instead refutes the question. After being asked, "What is a Woman?" Allison states, "Your definition that a woman who is someone that a female right? So what happens if we have someone who is female [...] maybe does not have the ability to reproduce?" (Dr. Phil, S20.E83). Allison dismisses the question by asking another question and is trapped as Walsh again proposes the question, "What is a Woman?" to bring the argument back. In response, Addison claims that he cannot identify what a woman is because he is not a woman but defined the ideology of womanhood (Dr. Phil, S20.E83). Addison's unintentional answer weakens his argument because he swayed away from the question by bringing up womanhood instead of defining what a woman is. As Allison continues swaying from the question, she states, "Trans women are women too." (Dr. Phil, S20.E83). This claim is an example of the proof by assertion fallacy. The proof by assertion fallacy is a preposition restated by someone who believes it remains true regardless of contradiction; therefore, Addison's claim that Trans women are women does not have credibility.

Kaitlyn Ackenback Per 6..

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Gender Pronoun Debate! | Dr. Phil 2022 (Full Episode) S20 E83

# data[].attributes.headline
The Authority Fallacy              Araceli Torres per6 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Authority Fallacy              Araceli Torres per6 

# data[].attributes.body
In the 2012 GameFly commercial, Blake Griffin is introduced as an expert in being "amazing", the viewers would agree with the fact that he is an amazing person, due to him being a professional basketball player, who's won many awards. In this advertisement, Blake Griffin states some examples of how to become amazing, and throughout the commercial, he tells his audience what he considers to be amazing and what isn't amazing. Blake Griffin then states, "you want a first-class ticket to amazing? You can get GameFly."(0:40), by stating so, he persuades his audience into wanting to buy GameFly in order to become an "amazing" person just like Blake Griffin because he is portrayed as an expert on being Amazing, which demonstrates an example of Authority Fallacy. The audience would then believe what Blake Giffin, a professional and popular basketball player has to say, but in reality, Blake Griffin is NOT an expert on being Amazing and has no actual message to say other than to buy GameFly. The advertisement persuades its audience because people are likely to believe in what a famous and popular person has to say, spreading the message that if one buys GameFly that person would automatically become "amazing".
Overall, I understand the fact that people are likely to trust the words of people who are famous due to them being seen as role models for many people, however, my point of view has changed, now when I look at commercials with famous people, I will look into their credibility and see if what they're saying is true or not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GameFly Commercial - Be Amazing - Featuring Blake Griffin!

# data[].attributes.headline
Fallacies in the debate(Albert Urbano P:3)

# data[].attributes.subject
Fallacies in the debate(Albert Urbano P:3)

# data[].attributes.body
The Tv station, NBC News broadcasted a Democratic Debate in February of 2020, that had seven nominees arguing against each other. The nominees that attended the debate are Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar. In the debate, the seven nominees are asked questions- either targeted questions at a specific nominee or open questions for everyone to answer- and given a short time to answer. After the nominee finishes answering the other nominees will either rebuttal or counterclaim. In the debate, the nominees used many fallacies to make their point. Firstly, from 3:30 to 4:00 Bloomberg used the Straw Man fallacy to answer why Sander wouldn’t win. Bloomberg responded to the question that Sanders will not win because of his healthcare plan. Bloomberg's answer simplifies Sanders' healthcare too, bad because the result will make people lose their healthcare. Bloomberg’s simplification dismisses the rest of Sanders' healthcare plan, he only focused on the consequences of the plan making Slanders look like the wrong nominee when there's more. After this from 4:08 to 5:00 Warren attacks Bloomberg‘s character, making use of the ad hominem fallacy. She exclaims that Bloomberg is racist, has sexually harassed women, and is arrogant. Warren didn’t criticize Bloomberg's plans or his previous statement, she criticized his behavior. Then at 6:54 Bloomberg's response included the false clause and authority fallacy, that because Bloomberg was the mayor of New York, he knows the best way to beat Trump: since Bloomberg was from New York he knows how to run a diverse and complicated system because New York's “a complicated city is the biggest most diverse city in this country”(7:05). Bloomberg response is a fallacy because a person being from New York doesn’t mean they know how to deal with Trump, and New York isn’t the biggest and diver state. The fallacy helped me realize that the nominees don’t have a solid reason to be chosen because they have only insulted each other and have not given reasons or plans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watch The Full NBC News/MSNBC Democratic Debate In Las Vegas | NBC News

# data[].attributes.headline
Appeal to Pity Fallacy (Yaquelin Santos; period.6) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Appeal to Pity Fallacy (Yaquelin Santos; period.6) 

# data[].attributes.body
Non-profit organization ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) usually advertises commercials with heavy Appeal to Pity. This Silent Night commercial aired in 2019, documents filthy ,weeping animals waiting for a home and better life. Depressing footage, nostalgic music and even gentle narration persuade viewers to feel sympathy, encouraging them to subscribe monthly and aid these hopeless animals. Naturally, ASPCA, one of many non-profit organizations, invented sympathetic advertising to win support for their brand and attract customers. Emotional imagery drives viewers to feel obligated to donate. Phrases such as “they need YOUR help… they NEED you” (ASPCA commercial) exaggerate necessities, one lost donation will not cause all these animals to die. The shivering dogs under the snow completely overpower the pricing and eliminate the “that’s too expensive” thought to viewers; anyone who ignores the ad feels guilty and has condolence towards animal cruelty. In addition, the Appeal to Pity fallacy convinces viewers to accept requests/arguments simply because they felt bad. Undoubtedly, I see the great effects Appeal to Pity can have to viewers, someone under emotional influence can be easily manipulated into actions. Commercials like this have made me feel bad for skipping and not being able to donate, little did I realize that that was it’s whole purpose, to trap me into thinking that all these animals need my help specifically.

# data[].attributes.body
Appeal to ignorance:

The appeal to ignorance fallacy can be used for an argument that cannot be proved or has not been proved before. In this Snickers commercial, the premise is that men should act manly and the conclusion is that if you are not manly, you need to eat Snickers. The argument is weak because the actions presented in this commercial can not be proved to be masculine or feminine. The creators of this commercial exploit societal norms of how certain genders should behave. The first example of this in the commercial is when the man with blonde hair gets injured when playing soccer and calls for the game to be stopped due to his injury. Mr. T appears driving a tank, bursts through the top, yells at the man and throws a Snickers bar at him. A more obvious example of this fallacy is when the man with blonde hair speed walks through a neighborhood in small yellow shorts with an exaggerated waddle. Mr. T appears again in the back of a pickup with a military grade weapon loaded with Snickers bars and yells the phrase, "You're a disgrace to the man race". Mr. T assumes the man's behavior to be feminine so he shoots Snickers bars at him in an attempt to make him run while yelling, "It's time to run like a real man". Mr. T concludes that only "real" men run, instead of speed walking. When in fact, it is not how the man behaves that makes him a "real" man, and Mr. T can not prove his manliness based on his actions.

Appeal to authority:
Mr. T is a well known actor and there is a pattern among his characters. They are always very dominant, assertive, and hyper-masculine. Snickers chose Mr. T to take part in this commercial because of his reputation, most famously his role in the television show The A-Team. Snickers target demographic with this advertisement is masculine men and people who like The A-Team and if they watched this commercial, they would feel inclined to buy a Snickers bar because Mr. T said they make you manly.

Amphiboly:
The slogan for this advertisement is “Get Some Nuts”. There are two ways to interpret this phrase which makes it ambiguous. The literal meaning means acquire some nuts, like the food. The alternative interpretation could mean get some testicles, implying that Snickers would make you tough and manly. This argument is not reliable because this could not possibly happen.

My views on this topic have changed dramatically, as it is more apparent to me that Snickers has used this type of marketing previously and still today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Extended Snickers Commercials of Mr.T (Full Version)

# data[].attributes.headline
Fallacies: Abbott vs. O'Rourke (Ramia Lorein Simon period 3)

# data[].attributes.subject
Fallacies: Abbott vs. O'Rourke (Ramia Lorein Simon period 3)

# data[].attributes.body
Time Frame: (0:00-13:48)

From analyzing and observing the Texas governor’s debates between Greg Abbott and Beto O’Rourke published by news broadcast KXAN, current Republican Governor Abbott and Democratic candidate O’Rourke argue regarding the policies of immigrant border protection from Mexico and their perspectives on restoring this present difficulty within the state of Texas. Throughout this debate, both candidates implement the ad hominem, red herring, and black and white fallacies which disrupt the credibility of their statements and compel many Texas residents to question the candidate’s validity to become their governor. For instance, the moderator of the debate addresses the first question that relates to the financial dilemma of the border in which Abbott and O'Rourke demonstrate fallacies. In Abbott’s argument, he emphasizes that the Biden Administration handled the financial situation of the border atrociously and that the problem lies within “Joe Biden’s failure to do the president’s job;” therefore, he directs his focus to O’Rourke to declare that Texas will follow “the same pathway Beto would take us down” (KXAN). As opposed to accepting the shortcomings of his position to strengthen his argument, Abbott continues to attack the Democratic party and reasons with the Texas residents that the underlying threat falls within the Biden Administration and associated party. This showcases an ad hominem fallacy considering that he criticizes the President’s decisions for border control which constructs an assumption that O’Rourke will follow exactly the policies and management the president believes in. Therefore, Abbott further generalizes the Democratic party through aligning the views of President Biden to the candidates running for office of the same political affiliation. Consequently, O'Rourke responds to the offender’s claim through declaring that “what we have is chaos thanks to Governor Abbott” while further elaborating on his perspective that the governor spent 4 billion tax dollars for his “political theater for his political career” (KXAN). Similarly, this democratic candidate attacks the character of the opposing candidate by indicating that the “chaos” for a “political theater” derives from the Texas governor. Rather than providing facts that accentuate the governor’s irrational spending, O’Rourke targets Abott as the main cause of the immigration issue which impacts a Texas voter's decision if he or she should consider O’Rourke’s language as credible. O'Rourke discusses the importance of adding a Texas guest-worker program to assist in “labor needs” and relieving issues of inflation; however, he ignores the question of “Has your view on deploying troops to the border changed?” (KXAN). He transitions abruptly from discussing the emotional burden of border patrol, to attacking the character of Abbott, and finally to a solution for border control that distracts the voters watching. This provides Abbott with a disadvantage considering that O’Rourke utilizes his last sixty seconds to appeal to the general public as opposed to answering the question in its entirety. Abbott retaliates through not only exposing O’Rourke’s indecisiveness of choosing an issue to rehabilitate, but he also goes off topic through listing a variety of issues that do not relate to the border issue, as he converses with the moderator, “he flip-flopped on the energy issue, such as energy jobs and the green new deal, he flip-flopped on defunding the police” and that he “keeps [on] changing positions” (KXAN). Abbott releases information regarding the proficiency of O’Rourke’s political work ethic and diverges his attention away from the intended question of bussing immigrants to the credibility of the candidate. He simultaneously provides ad hominem and red herring fallacies with his choice of attacking O’Rourke’s character and neglecting the current concern in the debate. When discussing the methods of repairing the issue of border security and management, O’Rourke indirectly provides two choices for a Texas voter to consider: whether the citizen will vote for an eight-year long elected governor that involves the state in “stunts” or a candidate that strives for “solutions” (KXAN). He presents two possibilities, stunt or solution, to indicate that O’Rourke’s policies remain detrimental for the safety of Texas as opposed to Abbott. This dilemma for a voter prohibits the thought of other candidates and alternative possibilities, thus, this candidate commits a black-or-white fallacy. Comparably, Abbott commits the same fallacy when blaming President Biden’s open border policy, he stresses, “we will have to continue to move migrants because Joe Biden continues to allow more illegal immigrants to come into the state of Texas” (KXAN). Abbott details the current dilemma of the border and indirectly argues that if President Biden no longer holds office, Texas will not need to move immigrants to other neighboring states. He presents two options, either Biden does not leave office and Texas continues to struggle with controlling the border or Biden leaves office which allows Abbott to commence his acts of tightening security. This fallacy also connects with the ad hominem fallacy considering that this republican candidate does not talk about his shortcomings, but rather, he condemns the president for his poor leadership. Generally, the thirteen minute-frame of debate between Greg Abbott and Beto O’Rourke exposes a variety of fallacies that considerably weakened their arguments.

Through meticulously analyzing the tone and speech of the two candidates running for Texas governor, many fallacies either intertwine with each other or continue to occur either unconsciously or consciously. When considering the credibility of each candidates’ arguments, many times Abbott and O’Rourke find faults of character in contrast to factual evidence of ineffective governing. Additionally with these statements, the two candidates develop their fallacies through contributing more fallacies in the argument itself. From observing, the politicians exhibit obvious types of fallacies; in a more analytical approach, many logical misinterpretations combine together to appeal to the Texas voters as much as they possibly can within the sixty second time frames. In a personal evaluation, these fallacies made me reconsider the validity of the arguments presented. I originally leaned towards O’Rourke’s views of “loan star”, but he constantly appeals to the emotions of the viewer and attacks the character of Abbott. For the second time watching, I intricately listened to the views of Abbott to understand his perspective rather than exclusively listening to a candidate that aligned with my views of border control. Understanding the flaws of an argument opens a perspective of neutrality and awareness of societal issues. Regardless of the negative effects of fallacies, these misinterpretations contribute significantly to debates, discussions, and commercials to inaccurately support a debater’s argument, but comprehending and identifying these flaws exposes the difference between factual arguments and opinionated claims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FULL: Texas governor's debate between Greg Abbott and Beto O'Rourke

# data[].attributes.body
Angela Rubio (period 3)
This 1994 Coca Cola commercial introduces the well known actor and singer Tyrese Bison who was only sixteen at the time. This commercial was actually the beginning of his career when other company brands began to take interest in him, such as Guess and Tommy Hilfiger. Throughout the video, it's shown that Bison’s singing and evident loss of embarrassment towards the crowd are supposedly a cause of drinking Coca Cola which is considered an appeal to emotion because everyone wants to feel comfortable and do the things they enjoy without the care of judgment from others.The fact that Bison smiled in the end himself implies that the consumption of this beverage actually made him feel great. The bandwagon fallacy is also introduced when the people surrounding Bison smiled with content to his singing which implies that drinking Coca Cola will grant acceptance within groups of individuals even strangers. Overall, the owner(s) of this brand intend to convince and persuade viewers to drink their product with the belief that doing so will grant them happiness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coca-Cola Commercial (Tyrese Singing On Bus), 1994

# data[].attributes.body
Chevrolet in their 2014 commercial advertises their car using fallacies such as the appeal to emotion fallacy and the faulty analogy fallacy. To begin, Chevrolet displays appeal to emotion throughout the commercial as they add sentimental music on top of clips of a woman going through life with the same dog and car. At the end of the commercial Chevrolet presents, “A best friend for life’s journey”. This evokes an appreciative attitude towards the car since many people correlate dogs as their best friends, and since the commercial creates a link between these two, the commercial forces the audience to correlate both in a positive light. This attitude then leads into the faulty analogy fallacy. Chevrolet compares both a dog and a car as best friends for life. They reason that getting a car will bring the same fulfillment as getting a dog because they both exist in our lives for a long time. Of course both don't carry the same sentimentality since a dog lives while a car remains an object.
Gloria Velazquez- Period:3

# data[].attributes.body
In this recent Washington Examiner article, AOC has been targeted and her stance to the recent incident that has happened in Iran. They use the strawman fallacy against AOC, by not having full understanding of what AOC is fighting for. They claim that she does not care about Iranian women when in fact she's fighting for all women. They go on to stating how AOC is not giving the proper acknowledgement to the Iranian women who was recently killed in the hands of police brutality. AOC recently tweeted "Solidarity with the courageous women and allies in Iran protesting for their freedom. Mahsa Amini was senselessly murdered by the same patriarchal and autocratic forces repressing women the world over. The right to choose belongs to us all, from hijabs to reproductive care," AOC is continuing the fight for all women. Washington Examiner is bringing up a different argument which is taking the spotlight of the main argument. Therefore they use the strawman fallacy to argue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman, died this month after being attacked by Iranian police for improperly wearing the compulsory hijab. In response, we've seen protests across Iran.

You might expect the "Squad," Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), and Cori Bush (D-MO), to speak out in support of Iranian women, right?

IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARIES NEED US

Not quite.

Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Bowman were the only members of the progressive congressional group to comment on the demonstrations, but even their statements fell short. "Solidarity with the courageous women and allies in Iran protesting for their freedom. Mahsa Amini was senselessly murdered by the same patriarchal and autocratic forces repressing women the world over. The right to choose belongs to us all, from hijabs to reproductive care," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted .

To use the protests to advance the pro-abortion agenda does a disservice to Iranian protesters. When making a statement to condemn a specific matter, the focus should be on the issue itself, not a general statement. While Ocasio-Cortez made it about Iran in her first sentence, the rest of the statement detracted from what should have been a condemnation only of the Iranian regime as opposed to "the same patriarchal and autocratic forces repressing women the world over."

Instead of posting a tweet, Omar posted an Instagram story about the demonstrations. Instagram stories disappear after 24 hours. Nonetheless, her words failed to call out the Iranian regime by name and, like Ocasio-Cortez's, offered a generic reaction.

Her weak statement said, "[G-d is perfect]. I can't imagine the agony [Amini's] loved ones feel. Those responsible for her death should be held accountable and the world should be united in fighting against the policing of what women wear and how they show up in society. Banning the hijab is not much different than forcing one on women. Religious beliefs are personal and should never be imposed on anyone. [May God have mercy upon her soul]."

Bowman's tweet was naive. "No government should be killing women for what they wear. Mahsa Amini should be alive today. I'm standing in solidarity with all the protestors in Iran and praying for your safety. Everyone deserves freedom," he posted. However, the protests are about more than an article of clothing. They are calling for an end to more than 40 years of theocracy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Finally, Tlaib, Pressley, and Bush, who claim to stand up for women, have done anything but when it comes to the women in Iran who have been burning hijabs and cutting their hair to protest the ayatollah.

This saga again demonstrates that the Squad's members only care about women when it fits their Marxist agenda.
Jackson Richman is a journalist in Washington, D.C. Follow him @jacksonrichman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Squad doesn't care about Iranian women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman, died this month after being attacked by Iranian police for improperly wearing the compulsory hijab. In response, we've seen protests across Iran. You might expect the "Squad," Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), and Cori Bush (D-MO), to speak out in support of Iranian women, right?

# data[].attributes.body
This airing of Fox News titled “AOC Misogyny claims in GQ cover interview” including the news reporters Kayleigh McEnany, Joe Concha, Harris Faulkner, Emily Compagno, and Martha MacCallum demonstrates many fallacious arguments including strawman, ad hominem, and no true scotsman.  The news person almost immediately provides a fallacious claim stating, “...it’s just another piece from the progressive Democrat as she complains and the magazine seems to elevate her”. This demonstrates the first fallacy, the straw man argument, upon introducing the GQ magazine featuring congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez that was labeled to include a conversation about “...masculinity, power and politics in a Post-Roe America” and distorting it as the congresswoman complaining. This misinterprets the main issue that involves a conversation about misogyny in the United States and distorts it into her complaining, making it easier to overturn. Another instance of the strawman fallacy happens after Faulkner recites a quote from Cortez. The quote was about the injustices of women in power in America due to how,  “...so many people in this country hate women, and they hate women of color”. The conversation shifts from a topic of misogyny into one about how people of color that are in positions of power have not done anything positive and therefore the argument remains invalid.  The people discussing the matter are not addressing the topics but instead changing them to fit their narrative. An example of the ad hominem fallacy occurs after this when Concha tries to refute the claim of misogyny existing by expressing that Cortez has not made any legislative accomplishments. Instead of addressing the topic, Concha tries to attack her character which has nothing to do with the original argument. Similarly, journalist Compagno also utilizes this fallacy by discrediting Cortez’s arguments because of her age claiming that she does not want to be lectured by a 32-year-old. Compagno also commits another fallacy (no true scotsman) by discrediting Cortez. She stated that if she truly wanted more representation then Cortez should celebrate her female colleagues; because Cortez does not do this, Cortez must not want what she argues for. In light of discovering these fallacies, it makes me mad that a platform as popular as Fox News would have people making such fallacious claims to a large audience. It also makes me question if other types of media use fallacious reasoning that is not as easily detected.
Amy Cossyleon Gallegos Per.6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AOC roasted for claiming America hates women

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwvAgDCOdU4
PespiCo advertises their beverage, Pepsi, in a 2017 commercial, "Live for Now," that features American Model, Kendall Jenner. In the 2017 commercial, PepsiCo attempts to persuade consumers to purchase their product while advocating for peace and unity. The Pepsi commercial enacts authority fallacy, bandwagon appeal, an appeal to emotion, and ignorance. Kendall Jenner holds credibility in the model industry and takes part in the world of social media influencers. However, Kendall does not hold credibility in the beverage industry. PepsiCo includes Kendall Jenner in their commercial simply due to her vast popularity. PepsiCo recognizes the fact that consumers are more likely to buy Pepsi if their favorite celebrity consumes the product as well. Therefore, people that know and/or admire Kendall Jenner will develop the mindset, “If Kendall drinks Pepsi, then so should I.” The commercial also presents a bandwagon appeal by showing a united city consuming Pepsi and enjoying themselves. PepsiCo institutes this bandwagon appeal in order to project Pepsi as the only acceptable beverage to drink. In this commercial, any other beverage besides Pepsi does not exist. Consumers will purchase Pepsi in order to become a part of the vast majority and hop on the bandwagon. In addition, PepsiCo enacts an emotional appeal and ignorance. Towards the end of the video, Kendall Jenner walks through a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters towards a coordinated line of police officers. Once Kendall comes close enough to an officer, she hands him a Pepsi and the crowd erupts in cheers. These images that PepsiCo presents not only enact emotion in the audience, but present a false sense of causation. A Pepsi can does not bring peace or end the fury caused by racial injustices, so the misconception portrayed in the commercial proves to be false and ignorant. The purpose of an emotional appeal towards the end lies in the misconception that Pepsi brings happiness as well as unity. While observing the fallacies, my views changed and I know not to fall in the trap of being a part of the majority. I also lost a bit of respect for the PepsiCo company as they should know better than to demonstrate ignorance regarding a serious topic such as racial injustice. I realized that companies like PepsiCo will try to collect more consumers through emotion and false conceptions of their products. I will certainly be more aware of the fallacies that industries use in order to steer clear of the art of persuasion. I now see advertisements through a whole different perspective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Full Pepsi Commercial Starring Kendal Jenner

# data[].attributes.body
11:10-36:22

The election for Texans is coming soon in November, causing the current governor Greg Abbott and Beto O’Rourke to debate on a consensus through questions proposed. This debate coincides in order to expose political opinions, proposals, and criticisms directed at potential voters. The Texas governor debate this year took place on Sept. 30, 2022, in Edinburg, Texas, Rio Grande Valley. An assembly of different topics that attach with questions; consisting of border issues, gun rights, and abortion laws in which candidates have sparked controversy amongst themselves and in public. Both parties have times in which they answer, but there are occasions where rules become broken due to arguments and disagreements. The following are instances of the fallacies employed during their speech times, forming themselves into less reliable via their faulty reasoning under their dispute.

Greg Abbott

Ad Hominem

Gregg Abbott exemplifies the use of Ad Hominem a multitude of times while speaking. He exhibits off-topic subject matter throughout speaking in the initial debate and criticizes Beto O’Rourke as a person. Abbott mentions that the state of Texas would lead on the wrong path due to him aligning as a democrat. He also attacks President Biden directly by stating that Biden is simply a failure at his job and has no idea what he is doing. He blames him overall for state funding and where the money is going.

Hasty Generalization

He also used the hasty generalization fallacy through a claim based on the little amount of evidence. He states that there is a “record amount of fentanyl coming across the border, enough fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child in the entire world” with no evidence given. He also mentions that all the people in El Paso are democrats. Additionally believes that only taking away the rights of those under 21 from owning a gun will remove the right in the constitution with ownership of a firearm. He uses little to no evidence to back these claims put forward.

Beto O'Rourke

Ad Hominem

Like Gregg Abbott, Beto O'Rourke also uses the Ad Hominem fallacy while disputing. He states that Abbott is blaming others for the problems when he should become more concerned about misleading the state and criticizing him overall.

Hasty Generalization

O'Rourke mentions many Hasty Generalizations starting off by stating,"all democrats and republicans can agree on this.” He introduces that the current government had been a failure for the state of Texas, and the chaos that is currently happening is due to Abbott. He also states,"This guy has been governor for eight years and this is where we are today... After all these shootings this governor has done nothing.” Providing no evidence, even though there might be some, for any of these claims. O'Rourke mentions that there should either be a lowering of age in owning a gun or the same habit with be continued that governor has not lifted a finger to assure kids will not go out with the same fate

Red Herring

Red Herring is a logical fallacy in which irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information, distracting attention from that relevant information. Both Greg Abbott and Beto O'Rourke exemplify this through their language and use of statements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas governor's debate: Gov. Greg Abbott vs. Beto O'Rourke

# data[].attributes.body
Ana Navarro and Cenk Uygur discussed the real issue with the 2020 Democratic Primary. They frequently employed fallacies like Ad hominem, No true Scotsman, Black and White, and Strawman in doing so. Parts of the argument were simply misconstrued; instead of criticizing the speaker's position or ideas, they attacked the speaker directly, suggested that a side must be chosen, and questioned the veracity of their own arguments. As is common knowledge, fallacies must be used, especially in the political sphere. In every predicament, logic will win out over credibility and feeling.
Cenk Uygur
Ad hominem
- Cenk dismisses the policies Biden has to offer and then goes on to say that Hilary Clinton should be compared to Biden rather than Trump. Trump is a typical lying, sniffing politician, but someone with a conniving side should expose that. Discrediting Trump's character.
- Overall, Navarro is intelligent and interesting to debate with, but she is a conservative, so it makes sense that she would want the Democrats to select the most conservative candidate they could find. Attacks her character and disparages her views after making the claim that she is a Republican.
No true Scotsman
- Cenk continues by pointing out how weak Biden is and how a stronger fighter is required to hit Trump where it hurts. Presupposes that by selecting Biden, we would repeat the error we made with Hillary Clinton in 2016.
- Declares how Obama famously predicted during the 2012 presidential campaign that if he won a second term, the Republicans' obstructionist fervor would subside and they would start working with him. Instead, they did the exact opposite and increased their resistance. Making Obama the outcast.
- Uses a reactionary, subjective idea to defend. Sanders aided Hillary Clinton in her campaign against Donald Trump. As a result, what Navarro has to say should be disregarded as revisionist history.
Black and White
- Republicans won't accept any policies that are even 1% progressive, so if you don't take their side, there won't be any agreement. Implying that a side must be chosen.
Strawman
- By condensing, Cenk rejects Navarros' use of Old Goat. Says she should be careful with her word choices because the word "goat" stands for the greatest of all time.
Ana Navarro
Ad Hominem
- Navarro suggests that Sanders is a terrible candidate by claiming that he and Elizabeth Warren are splitting the progressive vote amongst themselves. She Claims Bernie Sanders is an uncompromising old goat. Thus rejecting his principles.
No true Scotsman
- Navarro questions the sincerity or reality of the progressive agenda, arguing that Elizabeth Warren should really be the target of criticism rather than Joe Biden. This is to disprove the claim.
(7:30 - 21:55)
Period 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cenk And Ana Navarro Debate 2020 Election

# data[].attributes.body
The Hasty Generalization fallacy is demonstrated in the Drug Free America commercial. John Roselius presents the advertisement by providing a visual representation of what a drug-addled brain looks like. Your brain is represented by an egg, which, when cracked and placed on a frying pan, represents your brain under the influence of drugs. He ends the advertisement by asking if there are any questions. Although the advertisement's message is significant, particularly for the young people who made up the majority of its target audience, the ad falls victim to the fallacy of hasty generalization because no evidence is offered to back up the assertion that drugs have those effects. The organization now lacks credibility because people will simply disregard the advertisement as fear mongering.

Jose Cano Period 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Is Your Brain...This Is Your Brain On Drugs - 80s Partnership For A Drug Free America

# data[].attributes.body
Time: 22:40-36:00

Intended Topics: Tax rates and tax returns.

Clinton

Ad Hominem

1. She discredits Trump by deeming him a lunatic and his utterances nothing more than hearsay.

2. She attributes his undisclosed tax returns to his presumed fraudulence, false affluence, and tax evasion, enabling her to instill doubt in the audience.

3. She insinuates Trump as an imposter by detailing the number of organizations–troops, vets, schools, and health–that Trump owes money to, and has yet to finance, rather than his capabilities as president.

Red Herring

1. She motions for tax increases on the wealthy, but when petitioned to sustain her view, she scrutinizes Trump’s alleged hollow plans to reimburse American companies with their profits abroad, leaving him to speak and herself to successfully avoid lambasting from the public.

2. She alters the topic of discourse to discuss rebuilding the middle class and lowering personal debt, in place of justifying tax expansions, which undeniably distracts the audience from the actual issue at hand.

Trump

Straw Man

1. He appeases his reduced tax proposal by implicating Clinton as an inhibitor to America’s international revenue, and thereby the source of America’s economic turmoil.

2. He justifies his reduced tax proposal by criticizing Obama’s purported disinclination to enact a warranty that would retrieve all global profits for American companies.

3. He blames American's emigration for their financial profits on a faltering leadership, which, according to him, accredits itself to Clinton's involvement in economic decisions.

4. He censures the civil servants–namely Yellen–of the then current administration for purportedly mishandling interest rates to a dire extent in the name of Obama’s regime.

5. He unveils his profuse wealth to qualify him as a suitable leader in place of the alleged financially clueless–because of the barriers on international earnings–Obama administration.

Red Herring

1. He calls for tax reductions on the wealthy, but when implored to defend his stance, he shifts the argument to a call for major jobs.

2. He surmises that rather than bolstering the wealthy with his tax diminutions–which he also denies–he merely plans to discard the carried interest provision to instead uphold the middle class and enterprise expansion.

3. He avoids addressing his position on taxes, and instead denounces raising interest rates–what Clinton aims to do–because of their supposed cataclysmic effect on the economy.

4. He diverges away from the inquiry on his tax return audits to his other filings and disclosures, also reporting his prolific annual income, all as a means to reinforce his character.

5. He evades admonishment for withholding his tax returns by vowing to release them with the contention that Clinton releases her thousands of deleted emails–something entirely impertinent to the discussion.

Conclusion

This political debate between the 2016 presidential candidates, Hillary D. Clinton and Donald J. Trump, encompasses a multitude of repeated fallacies. Namely, the ad hominem fallacy, the straw man fallacy, and the red herring fallacy. Every attack that either Clinton or Trump inflicted on one another’s characters constituted an ad hominem fallacy because rather than argue the question, they condemned one another and their non-political proclivities. This served to discredit the offended, and thereby negatively alter the public’s perception of the targeted individual. Moreover, every exaggerated counterargument that either Clinton or Trump expressed towards one another represented a straw man fallacy because they would reconfigure the adversary’s argument into a hyperbolic version of it, in order for the individual counter-arguing to nimbly dismantle it. This functioned to garner rationale for the declarations of the individual counter-arguing, despite meriting it or not. Furthermore, every irrelevant point that either Clinton or Trump brought into question delineated a red herring fallacy because they responded to the initial question with an impertinent, diverting issue that did absolutely nothing to address the matter at hand. This acted as a distracting agent for the speaker to address an embellishing topic, without divulging information about themselves that would disconcert the audience. Ultimately, this debate has only corroborated my views about politics and the unwavering composure and eloquence that it takes to successfully champion arguments and garner popular support, because without the artful tactics of rhetoric, political debates would most certainly end in bloodshed. Nevertheless, they contain a formidable lesson: whether right or wrong, rhetoric will inevitably decide the light in which others perceive you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Clinton vs. Trump: The first 2016 presidential debate

# data[].attributes.body
This DirectTV commercial demonstrates the slippery slope fallacy. It begins with a small problem, but soon it creates a chain reaction of excessive repercussions. In the commercial, a lawyer gets irritable because his cable TV freezes, which leads him to have problems at work. This causes an innocent man to go to jail, so the innocent man now hates the lawyer. Once the innocent man is released from prison, he sets a bomb in the lawyer's house, so the house blows up. It is improbable that such a small dilemma would cause a chain reaction of that magnitude. DirectTV utilizes the slippery slope fallacy to evoke fear in the viewers by claiming that it can happen to them too if they do not switch to DirectTV.

Arturo Magaña per. 7

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Get Rid Of Cable Commercial Compilation   Direct Tv

# data[].attributes.body
Ricegum, a famous YouTuber with 10 million subscribers, involved himself in the 2018 Super Bowl commercial that involved Monster Headphones. The 2018 Super Bowl commercial implemented an authority fallacy, false analogy fallacy, and a slippery slope fallacy. This commercial used authority fallacy with Ricegum as its main character to sell their headphones. Ricegum earned his following because he made fun of a plethora of children but a few adults throughout his career, bringing him fame and fortune. The children he bullied did silly dances, faces, and skits on an app called Musical.ly, which children dominated. His fame didn’t come from reviewing technology or building amazing contraptions with his extensive knowledge on technology. Knowing this, it confused me seeing Ricegum “build great” headphones and actually wanting to buy them. I am ashamed of almost falling for this trap, looking back it made no sense and I am glad that my mother didn’t let me buy them. The false analogy involves his disstrack creation, because he can make music doesn’t mean he knows what makes headphones great. At the time he made disstracks I convinced myself that he made amazing music and points with the rhymes he made. Listening to his disstracks, they’re horrible and he had a ghostwriter all along. Everything this man child does online has been fake, with his career, flexing his wealth, and the music he made. Allowing me to see not just this commercial but others that are alike with a skeptical approach. Doing my research with their product and if the majority of people enjoy the product like the company claims. Slippery slope fallacy: Ricegum made headphones, met with Iggy Azalea, became rich, and famous. This commercial had Ricegum meet Iggy Azalea, making her audience create hope that they’ll meet her if they make something cool. Monster also wants her audience to buy the headphones because their favorite celebrity endorsed it. Ricegum getting rich and famous at the end gave the audience false hope that they too can be rich. The impressionable audience then would believe that they can get rich, but the reality would be that not anybody can be rich. Not just anyone can be riding the subway and next be in a Lamborgini Urus the next. It frustrates me because I allowed companies to influence me, especially back then when these companies could do whatever they wanted. It has improved since 2018, I should have just stayed off the internet at such a young age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RiceGum Super Bowl Headphones Commercial!! FULL VERSION

# data[].attributes.body
Fallacy: The Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy
Professor Sandel asks one of his students on same sex marriage, asking for their opinion. Allowing the students to give their opinion and personal experiences on the matter whether or not they were apart of the scenario. One student brings religion (Catholic) and government into the question discussing how they are not relevant to the matter. This fallacy created new hypotheses, instead of validating evidence. It changed my views on the topic by creating various forms of cognitive bias, that affects the presentations evidence.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Professor Sandel allows his students to respond to one another based on the topic of same sex marriage. One of the students states, "I hate to be uncouth but have you ever engaged in masturbation" Thus creating a bigger argument and judging ones opinion, by humiliating the other; attacking the opposing views indirectly. This fallacy changes my views on the topic by making me feel as if the individual does not understand what they are arguing about, and aren't capable of disproving the opponents views.

Fallacy: Straw Man
One of the students discusses how sex should be illegal if a woman is going through menopause, and another student counter argues that, and states that if so they should be able to marry themself, so they can legally masturbate. Proving the fallacy that a student discusses a different subject rather than the topic being discussed. This changes my views on the topic by seeing one of the individuals argument more strongly rather than the others opinions being discussed.

Fallacy: Equivalence Fallacy
Professor Sandel questions a student on their views on same sex marriages and compares them to abortion. Creating a fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them. This changes my views on the topic by making me question the relevancy of each topic, and how they relate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 12: "DEBATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE"

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 1.3-1.4 Understanding Fallacies discussion (Only first 24min of video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 1.3-1.4 Understanding Fallacies discussion (Only first 24min of video)

# data[].attributes.body
In his youtube video Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Episode 12:Debating same-sex marriage posted in 2009 by Harvard University, professor Michael Sandels, raises a class discussion on the morality and public controversies over same-sex marriage. Sandels starts the controversial discussion in an attempt to seperate arguments based on personal beliefs and unbiased justice. Throughout the first 24 minutes of the video, a multitude of arguments are based on one's moral values or religious beliefs. Each student has a different perception of why or why not same-sex marriage should be legal. During the debate, students for and opposed to same sex marriage make use of Hasty Generalization, Strawman, and black and white fallacies, weakening their arguments. For example, Mark starts the debate arguing against same sex marriage because as a Catholic Christain, marriage should result in procreation. He declares, “I think that for people like myself who are a Christian and also a Catholic the purpose of sex is one for its procreative uses and two for unifying purpose between a man and a women within the institution of marriage” (Sandel video). Mark limits his argument to only being credible through a religious perspective. He utilizes hasty generalization by seemingly stating that if Catholic Chirstians including himself believe that marriage should be between man and women in order to procreate then same-sex marriage should be illegal. Mark generalizes the sterotype that all Catholic Christians belive in the same instituion of heterosexual marriage. Though Mark and other Christians may feel homosexuality goes against the biblical ideas of marriage that does not mean society has the same general belief. Furthermore, those arguing against same-sex marriage utilize Strawman fallacies. For instance, when Professor Sandel asked Ryan if he agreed with Marks notion of illegal same-sex marrigage, he changes the objective of his argument. He states, “I think that the ideal of marriage involves procreation…the government doesn't have a responsibility to encourage that” (Sandel video). Ryan changes the argument from the legality of same-sex marriage to the argument of whether the government should make it permissable. By making the debate about government regulation, Ryan seemingly defeats the argument of legal same-sex marriage. However, instead of giving a reason to why same-sex marriage should be illegal he questions why the government would even encourage the idea of homosexual marriage. Ryan does not present an argument relevant to professor Sandels question and the discussion becomes redirected to a similarly different argument. Later in the video, Mark utilizes the Strawman fallacy to rebuttal Hanna’s counterargument of not all hetero and homosexual marriages resulting in children. Hanna ask Mark if he thinks it would be illegal to engage in sex without the result of children. Rather than directly answering the question,  Mark changes the argument to the purposes of sex beyond procreation. Furthermore, Hannas argument for legalizing same-sex marriage loses its credibility when she engages in a circular argument. She declares, ¨Homosexuals are human too¨ (Sandel video). She gives no sufficient evidence for why same-sex marriage should be legalized and instead uses the same argument of being human made by her counterparts. She seemingly states homosexuals should get married because they are people too. The majority of arguments made between those for and against same-sex marriage present a black and white fallacy. A majority of those arguing against same-sex marriage state that the institution of marriage should only be between men and women, presenting no other option. In comparison to those arguing for same-sex marriage, who present marriage as a choice. The analyzation of the arguments made in the video has allowed me to identify the weak argument’s about same-sex marriage. The fallacies identified within peer arguments suggest how the matter of legalizing same sex marriage can not be disscussed without the mentioning of ones own moral beliefs. When ones own opinions are immplemented into an argument it weakens credibility due to biases. Sandel started the disscussion with the intention of settling the matter without discussing the morality of homosexuality or the purpose of marriage. However, Harvard students presented arguments that lacked reason due to their use of fallacies and personal morals. In comparison, the legalization of same sex marriage should be based ones own civil freedom not the sterotypical biases of society. Same-sex marriage should be legal not becuase it morally aligns with ones values but because it presents an equal choice of marriage for all citizens. Legalizing same-sex marriage causes no harm to society by only presenting an equitable option of marital commitment. Overall, the use of fallacies has made me realize that when determining whether to leagalize same-sex marriage, arguments should seperate state and church in order to rid ones bias.
-Rebecca Soto per:3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 12: "DEBATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE"