I only watched from 9:06 to 10:00 but it was apparent that this was a circus. Even before that, I saw a tweet from ThinkProgress saying Michelle Bachmann 
proposing a 90% sales tax. As my mom said, “the tax will hurt the poor who buy goods necessary for their survival.” I went through the debate and found numerous logical fallacies by most of the participants.
The “debate” or a sqawk box for each candidate would be dream for a student of philosophy. Fallacies were everywhere. I kept careful track of each time a break in logic occurred. I didn’t get every one, but I tried my best and compiled them on a list:
Michelle Bachmann
Ad populum: I
Laziness: II
Argumentum ad ignorantium: I
Bad analogy: I
False dilemma: I
A choice is made between her and Mr. Obama as the next President
Herman Cain
Straw man: I
- 1st time petaining to Ron Paul
False dilemma: I
- Makes it seen choice is between him and Mr. Obama
Ad hominem: II
- Attacked Anderson Cooper as being wrong about his statement
Rick Santorum
Fallacy of solipism: II
- 1st time he said what he wants is true for everyone
Straw man: II
Newt Gingrich
Fallacy of composition?: I
Appeal to authority?:I
Misplaced accent?: I
Rick Perry
Ad populum: I
Petitio principii: I
Ad hominem fallacy: II
False dilemma: I
- Makes it a choice between him and Mr. Obama as President
Mitt Romney
Ad misericordium: I
Fallacy of solipism: II
Composition fallacy?: I
Ad hominem: IIII
Highlights from candidates’s positions, the most memorable:
- “We will not negiotate with terrorists”- Herman Cain, sounding like George W. Bush all over again
- Mitt Romney wants to cut 10% of federal workforce
- “Peace through strength”- Herman Cain
- Ron Paul says people are victims of business cycle
- Nations should reimburse us, especially Iraq and Libya says Michelle Bachmann
- Ron Paul supports limiting military spending by 15% and cutting non-defense spending out of budget like overseas bases. On the other hand, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain did not want to cut military spending. Michelle Bachmann said she would be open to cutting military spending.
- Newt Gingrich would want Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Obama
On a completely different note, Anderson Cooper was a horrible moderator. He cut Ron Paul off at the end and Michelle Bachmann got in because she whined “Anderson!” People had long monologues, not stopped in any way. On clear example is when Mitt Romney was asked about Occupy Wall Street. He dodged the question, talking about foreclosures, housing and the economy instead. Also, CNN’s questions, including questions from audience violated another fallacy: complex questions. Remember to never trust CNN ever again for accurate Presidential debates.
If you have an questions about what each fallacy is, then don’t hesitate to contact me.
If you’re going to criticize–spell your words correctly and use words people will understand. Your shitty attempt to talk over people in an attempt to seem as though you have proven a point only makes you look like pompous ass and forces people to ignore you.
Good job.
I’m no really sure if this is sarcastic or just mild criticism. The idea of having a “shitty attempt to talk over people” seems to have no basis this written piece. I don’t really look like a pompus ass as you say of the article, I try to criticize the debate as a whole. I don’t think it forces people to ignore me, it interests them because many others did not follow this analysis of the “debate” itself.
Also to find information on the fallacies, go here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies