Fallacies in Clinton-Sanders Debate

Fallaciesin Clinton-Sanders Debate

In the debate, Hillary Clinton was asked on what was her view on theongoing FBI investigation that focuses on some of her private emails.The case arose in the period she was serving as the secretary ofstate and it is more likely to jeopardize her campaigns. In thiscase, it seems like Chuck Todd was questioning her ability to makedecisions as opposed to the position she was holding or even theposition she is aspiring to have that is being a president.

In this context, it was the Democrat primary debate where thecandidates were expected to discuss various issues on the way theyhave handled things in the past and what they will do in the futureas well. More importantly, the issues to be handled ranged from thehealthcare, education and foreign policies as well.

The illustration is an example of an ad hominem fallacy where ChuckTodd was the question was attacking Clinton as a person rather thanthe position she has. The fallacy refers to the way someone willattack a leader personally and not based on the activities that arefocused on the roles expected from him or her as a leader.

In this case, Chuck Todd was supposed to question the position shewas holding and her views on the GOP and what she wanted to change.In fact, raising the issue of the private emails is just one way ofpainting her as a wrong person yet she has the ability to performeffectively in other areas of the government. A single case that isunder investigation does not mean that she is guilty and she shouldbe charged in the court.

References

Clinton Sanders – Debate February 5 2016 MSNBC [FULL] 2/4/16.Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBkWShXFcZ4