Logical Fallacy

In politics logical fallacy is everywhere, for this post I decided to watch a few debates and it didn’t take long for me to find logical fallacy. In the debate, moderator Maria Bartiromo asked Florida ex-Governor Jeb Bush the following:

Bartiromo: Governor Bush, gun rights… What is the harm in tightening standards for not only who buys guns, but those who sell them?

Bush: I think we need to focus on what the bigger issue is. It isn't law-abiding gun owners. Look, we have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while. And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities.

Jeb Bush is claiming that the fact that “youre going away” meaning you will go to prison “for a long, long while” if you use a gun to commit a crime in flordia caused the reduction in gun violence in the state he was the former governor of. The word “because” signals that this a casual claim. However, how do we know that. However, how do we know that the imprisonment policy is responsible for causing the drop in gun violence? Bush is not explicit about when this policy was adopted, but presumably it was adopted before and was in place during at least part of the reduction or it would be clear that the policy could not be responsible for the reduction. So for this reason I decided to fact check Mr. Bush’s claim that gun violence went down in Florida while he governed there. The Washington Post’s fact checker:

Some types of gun violence decreased while Bush was governor of Florida, but not all. … Overall crime decreased while Bush was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. The downward trend continued after he left office, and is consistent with crime rates overall in the country. This is not an exhaustive look at gun violence in Florida, but we crunched the numbers in three key categories of gun violence to see how they fared between 1999 and 2006…. Murders by firearm were at three per 100,000 in 1999, then four per 100,000 in 2006. But it increased to 4.4 per 100,000 in 2007…. Aggravated assaults with firearms and gun robberies went down while Bush was in office.

It appears that gun violence in Florida during Bush’s term was like a seesaw, some types went up and some types declined. The Fact Checker points out, the downward trend in Florida was part of a larger national reduction in crime. For this reason, it's impossible to know how much if anything "tough" sentencing policies may have had to do with this reduction. Plausibility is not enough.

Jeb and Donald debate on Eminent Domain- Red Herring

     There are many logical fallacies that occur in debates between political figures. Politicians use logical fallacies in some of their arguments because they are sometimes not capable of producing a reasonable statement.

One logical fallacy that is used to simply redirect the attention of the audience from the original argument, is called red herring. Red herring, also know as ignoratio elenchi, consists of either creating a false emphasis, changing the subject or stating an argument that is irrelevant to the original in the means to divert attention. This fallacy can sometimes be useful if it is used to save time. Giving yourself time in order to think of a more logical statement. Also if multiple arguments are being used against you at the same time, red herring can be used to centralize your response towards one particular argument.

 Although the use of logical fallacies is frowned upon, there are sometimes occasions where using a logical fallacy would work as a last resort. Stating a logical fallacy in an argument could probably be better than stating nothing at all, ironically, therefore not making it seem as if your arguments are inadequate for debate.

     A video that shows how red herring is used by politicians is shown by a recent republican debate with Jeb Bush arguing against Donald Trump in the subject of eminent domain. Eminent domain is defined by Josh McElveen in the video as "the seizure of private property for the sake of the greater good".

Both candidates present different opinions on how eminent domain should be used and on how it is used currently in time. Trump believes that eminent domain is an "absolute necessity" for the United States because it provides us with roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, etc. Although Bush accepts this argument to be true in terms of public purpose, he argues that Trump has personally used eminent domain to take the private property of land owners for private purposes. In other words, to build hotels, condos and parking lots for his limousines.

Bush's argument makes the audience cheer and clap giving him full support. The audience also create a revolt on Trump's attempted response by booing him. This leads Trump to respond to the audience by stating that the participants of the audience only consists of Bush's "donors and special interests groups". Trump spends a total of forty seconds arguing about how the entire audience is against him, using the red herring fallacy to misdirect the attention from the original argument with Bush.

     The red herring fallacy affects our use of logical arguments in a negative way because it shows how simple it is to misdirect the argument into something else. Changing the subject of an argument expresses how unreasonable an argument can become and it only works to resemble the lack of authority that the person arguing possesses. Red herring can show how inadequate responses can be and readers should address this fallacy by giving responses with logical knowledge on the subject and by maintaining self-control. 

Conspiracst Sharpshooting in Texas

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-on-scalia-pretty-unusual-he-was-found-with-pillow-over-face/article/2583356

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on February 13th, 2016 at Cibolo Creek Ranch in West Texas. Shortly after Scalia's death, GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump commented on the issue stating that "they found a pillow on his head, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow." GOP candidate Michael Savage then stated "This is the most corrupt, degenerate, criminal government in American history," in relation to Scalia's death.

Scalia, who died at 79 years old was known for being obese with a history of using tobacco products. Conspiracist believe Scalia's death was a homicide based on the evidence of a pillow found over his head, and his family denying a proper autopsy. These conspiracist present strong allegations while disregarding Scalia's age and health history.

These GOP candidates and conspiracist present the Texas sharpshooter logical fallacy when commenting on the death of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. They used evidence of the pillow being found over Scalia's head to further suit their argument that his death was a homicide. Based on events of pillows being used to smoother victims, the conspiracist use this pattern to justify their reasoning and logic.

Hillary Clinton and the Bankers who Back Her

Hillary Clinton.

I don't consider myself a politically-savvy man, but it's relatively easy to find that—of all candidates—Clinton, receives funding from lobbyists tied to Wall Street corporations known for controversy; Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, and Time Warner among them.

And while I can't say I'm an expert on this year's presidential candidates—at least not with the spotlight fixed on Trump's toupee, I didn't need to search long to find a logical fallacy. In the New Hampshire Democratic Debate last December, Bernie Sanders decided to bring attention to the donations bankrolling Clinton, by stating that we must handle: 

"[the] degree to which big money controls the political process in this country," 

or else:

"nobody is gonna' bring about the changes that are needed in this country for the middle class and working families."

Clinton responded with a strawman argument. The strawman fallacy is when an individual creates a mock argument to refute, in place of the position they claim to be discrediting. This could be misrepresenting another's opinions and ideas, attacking these misrepresentations instead of what the other intended to mean.  

• John wants to repeal the death penalty
• Bill argues that letting convicted criminals go free puts innocent people at risk.

Clinton partakes in this fallacy with the following:

"There is this attack that [Sanders] is putting forth which really comes down to: anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group, has to be bought."

In this response, Clinton declares that Sanders' assumes she'd been bought out by her detonators, when in reality, he's cautionary over the influence on her politics these groups have. While not a Sanders' supporter, I found Clinton's reply to be botched and unsympathetic towards those with different view points. 

At least that's what I think. I might be biased, everyone is. Welcome to politics.

Good night.

Don't Fight Criticism with Criticism or You'll Get Berned

Finding logical fallacies in a political debate is probably the easiest task possible. It would also be extremely easy to go on YouTube, search for the video of a republican debate, scroll to any random moment, and find a fallacy. Of course, this is an exaggeration. However, as a liberal that would be incredibly biased. So, for this post I chose to watch the most recent democratic debate and try to find fallacies there. There weren’t that many at first that were inherently apparent and most of the conversation was quite civil. Then, the nominees became a lot more "passionate" and the most common fallacy, that I could spot, was the tu quoque fallacy.

The example fallacy mentioned here happened at the thirty-minute mark.

The tu quoque fallacy is basically when someone tries to evade answering any criticism directed at them by turning the conversation around, and criticizing person who accused them instead of backing up their actions or beliefs. Unfortunately, this type of fallacy is very prevalent in a lot of debates or arguments in the media and people seem to see it as an easy way out instead of having to actually explain themselves. They may not be incorrect in redirecting the criticism towards their opponent, maybe bringing to light a more important issue, but it is still a childish way to conduct official debates. The media also doesn’t seem to pay much attention to this sort of inappropriate conduct amongst nominees because this behavior, sadly, garners more views from the public and makes for a more entertaining debate while simultaneously allowing the channels covering them to capitalize on those comments. However, news outlets need to be reminded that the purpose of these debates is to inform the masses and to not entertain them.

In the debate Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton both argued, for the most part, on the offensive. A lot of questions were answered by responses along the lines of “Yes, I know I did (fill in the blank), but what he/she did was worse!”

One example is thirty minutes into the debate, after a series of back and forth attacks, Clinton while trying to defend herself makes a very direct attack on Sanders stating:

“But while we’re talking about votes, you’re the one who voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives in 2000, which contributed to the overleveraging of Lehman Brothers, which was one of the culprits that brought down the economy… People make mistakes. And I am certainly not saying you [Sanders] did it for any kind of financial advantage.”

This statement essentially takes away from the main topic and the initial question asked, and turns into a criticism towards Sanders and his voting record.

As a supporter of these candidates it was very disappointing to see them act this way. The problem with tu quoque is that it gives the impression that the receiver of the criticism, when they respond with a counter-attack, knows what she/he is talking about when that might not be the case. It creates very childish dialogue. I can almost imagine this taking place in a playground with two kids arguing over who started a fight. “She pulled my hair!” “But, he pushed me first”, I can imagine them saying. This sort of behavior does not indicate any level of sophistication from either party and therefore should be regulated more closely by moderators. Moreover, media might like to consider not advertising this conduct, however, that is highly unlikely because unfortunately we live on a society that enjoys the entertaining aspect of spewing out fallacies instead of the content they are supposed to provide.

Martin O' Malley Appeals to emotions

During a Democratic Debate in October Martin O' Malley was asked on what he would do to convince congress to pass gun control legislation in which Malley responded with how many political candidates would answer a question and that is to appeal to the public's emotions. Malley begins to reference the Aurora shooting and talks specifically about a family who had lost their daughter and the struggles they went through in the courts. This story then leads to a rant about the NRA but he yet has truly answered the question.

In todays culture politicians use many different tactics to get the people on their side but appealing to emotions is probably one of the most common tricks they use. The crazy thing is that it actually works, when watching these debates some people may not paying close attention so when a touching story is told as the one Martin O' Malley tells then the viewers lose focus from the initial question and are now more interested in the story. Voting for a president shouldn't be similar to voting for someone on American Idol, the people should care more about the candidates plan to better the country rather than their personal experiences that may not even pertain to the issues that this country faces. Having the public be more attentive to these debates or political campaign advertisements then this fallacy can be exposed on a greater level.

Logical Fallacies in Politics

There are so many logical fallacies, but I will be focusing on one, Ad Hominem. Ad hominem is where you attack a person instead of their ideas.This is a mean way to try and win an argument or competition. We see this so much all over the news and social media. Nowadays we call it "throwing shade". There are thousands of  examples all over the internet. Politicians are being rude and hateful towards their opponents to make themselves look better. Below is a video showing an example of this unprofessional behavior.
  In this video Mitt Romney is attacking Obama.

Romney is basically saying that Obama is a terrible president and the unemployment rate has gone up significantly since Obama became president. He is saying that we do not need another four years of this. He is attacking Obama, he is not saying why this is or why he thinks that. He has no evidence to show, he has no reasoning. He is not making an argument, he is simply blaming Obama for everything. Romney is saying that if he becomes president, he will magically fix America's unemployment problems.

"Throwing shade" can be seen in all presidential elections. Trump would be the most recent example. Trump loves "throwing shade", so much, that there is even an article about it for example there is an article on cnn politics called "How to Throw Shade Like Donald Trump". Candidates use this to show how much better they are than their opponents.

 Politicians use logical fallacies all the time, because they are wrong but effective. When politicians use these fallacies, it is hard for the audience to stay unbiased. they will affect your thinking,  they will make you feel some strong emotions (most likely anger towards their opponent)and that is exactly what the politicians are hoping.

The best way to address these fallacies is, to stay unbiased, think logically about what the person using the fallacy is saying. Ask yourself: do I agree with this? Is he/she correct? Does what he/she is saying even make sense? It is difficult but, do not get the emotions get the best of you. Stay neutral.
Ps. Try not to use logical fallacies. I dare you to try!

Rubio's Red Herring

        I started my quest for logical fallacies in politics with what I figured would be the easiest (and possibly most trite) option, Mr. Donald Trump. After peeling through various interviews and statements via YouTube I stumbled across a clip from one of the 2016 Republican Presidential Debates.


         The clip is titled "Donald Trump Marco Rubio Challenge Racial Divide in America" and in it ABC's David Muir is the moderator. Muir opens up with asking Trump how he would "bridge the divide" between law enforcement whom Trump says are the "most mistreated people in America" and the people. Trump laudes law enforcement officials and stressed the fact that the people must respect police so that police can feel comfortable enough to do their jobs.

 Muir then directed a question at Senator Marco Rubio, Muir brought about a comment Rubio made about President Obama saying Obama is "...always pitting people against each other.".  Muir mentioned that Rubio made the statement after President Obama visited a mosque for the first time in his presidency and Muir also brought up the fact that President Bush visited a Mosque after 9/11. Muir blatantly asked Rubio to distinguish between the two events and whether or not Rubio himself would visit a mosque as president. Rubio retorted that he would in fact visit a mosque as president and began to accuse President Obama of perpetuating "...this fiction that there's this widespread systematic discrimination of Muslim American citizens."so let's pick up on this argument right here.

Rubio is saying that there is no wide spread systematic discrimination of Muslims in American, seems pretty dismissing, no? How does the senator plan to back up his claim? His justification is a simplistic as his initial claim, Rubio says, "First of all, let's recognize this, if you go to a cemetery in this country you will see Stars of Davids, crosses, but you will see crescent moons." It's worth noting that Rubio did go on to mention fallen Muslim American soldiers who fought for the United States and deserve honor and respect like any veteran, and he mentioned the importance of improved relations within the Muslim community so that they will be more willing to report suspicious behavior. Senator Rubio wrapped his response up with adding that many Christian groups that "hold traditional values" are currently under attack and are discriminated against in the United States.

        It seems tough to me to choose just one fallacy committed in this response to a question on race. One could argue the false cause fallacy, this occurs when an arguer assumes a relationship or correlation between two situations and again assumes that one causes the other. Rubio says there is no systematic discrimination for Muslim American people, according to his logic there can't be, we have crescent moon head stones, hello!

 The two scenario are not indicative of each other. While it is wonderful that Muslim American veterans can be honored respectfully, it hardly dismisses the whole of systematic discrimination. Something as insidious as systematic discrimination pervades all areas of politics, business and society so choosing one example of "equality" cannot be used to determine if something more perverse is occurring in America.

This flippant response is similar to everyone's favorite post racial America argument, "America can't still be racist, our president is black!". As Dominican author Junot Diaz puts it, "Exceptions to phenomena do not excuse phenomena." It simply isn't fair to choose one instance as the measuring stick to all other instances. Lastly, Rubio makes use of the Red Herring fallacy, which occurs when an arguer deliberating repackages the argument to a topic better suited for them to assert an opinion on. Toward the end of his speech Rubio is sure to throw in the fact that Christians are discriminated against (too!). His hurried statement as the bell sounds seems very "Hey don't look at that, look at me look at me!" and with it his Jenga tower argument really beings to waver.

       Marco Rubio's response to David Muir's posed question seemed hasty and ill founded which is probably why it's a just a gold mind of fallacies.

Ronald to Donald

US News - Political Revolution

The article, provided by the link above, compares the percentage of voters between the Republicans throughout the most previous elections. Also, including the Democrats and how they're actually decreasing. In the article, it was stated that Trump was asked to put his success into a historical context which he used Reagan as a comparison.

By him stating that, it seemed to be composition/division logical fallacy. Composition/division is when one part of something has to be applied to all, or other parts of it, or that the whole must apply to its parts. By Trump comparing his movement to Reagan's, its as if Trump will succeed as Reagan did, just because he is assembling a similar movement. But that is not the complete case. Trump believes that the extent isn't the same, as well as the intensity, but that doesn't mean it could be any better than Reagan. This may have an affect on our culture because there are already mixed feelings regarding Trump. By him stating something as such, it could give him more credibility or the opposite. What readers can do to address the fallacy is look more into Reagan's movement and really compare it to what Trump is trying to do as well. See where Trump is succeeding in and what he's flunking in. That would allow the readers to have actual facts and realize why it would be a composition/division fallacy for him to say that.

Ad Hominum Political Fallicies

In politics, ad hominum pretty much focuses on attacking a political party rather than addressing that party's concern. A video and article about donald trump's speech made people comment and attack.  Trump answered a question about the middle east which was " a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," following his openness to the idea of establishing a database to track those that are already within the country, is beginning to cost him business opportunities in the Middle East.

"Landmark Group, a Dubai-based holding company that operates the regional home retail chain Lifestyle, announced on Wednesday that its stores would no longer carry "Trump Home" — a line of luxury furnishings inspired by the real estate mogul's properties — in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. If other retailers follow suit, the trend could deal a serious blow to Trump's bottom line, since businessman-turned-reality TV star now makes most of his money from selling his name to golf courses, luxury developments, and retail goods.After Trump's "complete shutdown" proposal, Landmark CEO Sachin Mundhwa said that his stores would no longer be in business with the presidential candidate."In light of the recent statements made by the presidential candidate in the US media, we have suspended sale of all products from the Trump Home décor range," he said. Mundhwa declined to estimate the value of the Trump contract."

A comment about Trumps plan "This is what the Republican party deserves. For years their politicians and talking heads have hinted at these exact kind of policies in a way where they wouldnt completely offend the opposition yet convey the message in that "wink wink nudge nudge" manner to satisfy the crazies. Now they have a guy who says exactly what they've always wanted without any constraints and its completely alienated the party from any moderate followers they may have had. This is the Republican base, not the Trump base and this is what people like me have been trying to point out ever since the tea party wave in 2010. Some of the nastiest politics have taken place in their corner of the ring.

(I'm sorry supporters) Hillary Clinton's Appeal to Emotion

I will be discussing a quote from Hillary Clinton in the 2nd Democratic Debate this past year. It was immediately what my mind went to when I heard of the “appeal to emotion” fallacy.

To sum it up, Bernie Sanders pointed out that Wall Street has, over her political career, been the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton. He was saying that, though she says she will “take on Wall Street,” she is receiving incredible amounts of money from these big banks, and she wouldn’t actually follow through with her promise.

If the big banks actually though she would hurt their finances, they would try to buy someone else, but the fact that they still support her speaks volumes. She felt that he was impugning her integrity, but instead of firing back with a logical argument or some counter point, she said this:

You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, and I am very proud that for the first time the majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. I represented New York and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked, where we were attacked. We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. (Clinton)

You can also view the video of this moment here:




Hillary Clinton’s response in this debate was centered on the emotional reaction Americans have with the September 11^th terrorist attacks, rather than mentioning any legislation or action she has supported.

According to the website from our class describing different types of logical fallacies, the “appeal to emotion” fallacy is, “You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.”

Hillary Clinton, rather than regaining our trust that these campaign contributions don’t dictate her loyalties, instead chose to talk about how she was a senator in New York during these attacks, thus drawing on the audience’s feelings towards 9/11.

This is manipulating an emotional response from the American people, because it immediately makes the audience want to be on her side… but it’s not a valid response to Bernie Sander’s accusation that Wall Street has bought her loyalty.

This fallacy just goes to show you that sometimes people, politicians especially, can gain our support by appealing to our emotions, rather than using logic.  This is especially important during the upcoming presidential election.

Voters should look through the feelings that the candidates drum up, and see what the candidates are really saying, or not saying. Moreover, voters should also consider the actions, or inactions, of the politicians on the issue.

 People should not allow themselves to be swayed by off-topic, self-serving references towards tragedies or victories from our past. While sometimes it is appropriate to bring events like this up in debates or speeches, this example was not one of them.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate to engage in such logical fallacies. Donald Trump is also prone to using emotion to get supporters to disregard things like morals and laws.

As humans, it may be hard, but people must see through these veils to what candidates are really saying.

So, as you watch the debates to follow, watch out for similar fallacies from all candidates. They may just be trying to manipulate you into supporting them. Support a candidate for what they can do for this country, not how they make you feel. 

Logical Fallacies in Political Context

One logical fallacy in particular that I often find myself falling prey to (or using) is Appeal to Emotion. Within this fallacy, one attempts to make or refute an argument through the use of emotion or sympathy rather than through logic. For example, an employee might attempt to talk his boss out of firing him because he has children at home to feed. Or a student might try to convince their professor to give them a passing grade on an exam they missed, because their car broke down on the way to class. We frequently encounter it in our daily lives, but the humanitarians and Good Samaritans within us can oftentimes blind us to the fallacy aspect of such entreaties.

Unfortunately, this particular type of logical flaw is also quite common in politics. One such example of this is a presidential campaign ad recently released by Republican candidate Marco Rubio:

The main focus of this ad is the state of the economy, and the effect it will have in the years to come. Particular emphasis (to use more specific examples) is placed upon how the children of future generations will be burdened by debt, and how young, newly married couples will struggle within this economy. However, rather than listing ways in which Rubio means to improve the economy if he is elected, this ad merely attempts to convince viewers that leaders like Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are to blame, and should therefore not be given the support of voters.

Let me restate that: no reference whatsoever is made to how Rubio means to improve the economy. In fact, the only time Rubio’s name is mentioned at all is in the approval message at the very end of the ad. Never once is it said aloud. The soft music and picturesque visuals act as an aid to this ad’s use of Appeal to Emotion by portraying the people of America as downtrodden and weary. This hides the fact that when it comes to actual content, the ad is little more than a smear campaign.

via quickmeme

I believe that kindness and empathy are extremely important traits, and should be taken into consideration when making most, if not all decisions. However, when confronted by a logical fallacy like Appeal to Emotion, I also believe that the best course of action is to try and temporarily remove yourself from any emotional reaction and look at the situation from a strictly logical point of view. Should the employee be given another chance, despite the fact that they’ve been consistently lacking in their performance? Should the student be given a passing grade, despite the fact that it is their responsibility to ensure they either show up to class on time or give prior warning of their absence? Ultimately, there is no cut-and-dried rule as to what the correct course of action is when confronted with a situation like this. But taking time to look at the circumstances through both entirely subjective and objective viewpoints will likely help a great deal in narrowing down the reaction that you feel best suits the situation.

Senator Dick Black Logical Fallacy

Virginia state Senator Dick Black was under ridicule for a tweet he posted. Dick Black uses the logical fallacy ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. The tweet was titled "It's about experience". This tweet was a response to his opponent Jill McCabe after she labeled him a career politician. The tweet was an image of a chart depicting the accomplishments of both candidates. Dick Black's accomplishments were posted on the left including; Senator, Delegate, Accountant, Marine Major, Army Colonel, Home Builder, Herpetologist, Factory Manager, Career Prosecutor, Construction Engineer, Pilot and Flight Instructor, Library Board Member, Father of Three and Grandfather of Fourteen. On the right is Jill McCabe's accomplishments which include Doctor and Mother.

Dick Black is casting doubt on Jill McCabe's character as well as her personal attributes by saying she does not have the experience or the credentials to run in this campaign. Ad hominem assertions help to discredit the opponent rather than their argument. At times the ad hominem method can be very effective in swaying one's personal opinions on a topic.

In order to recognize that ad hominem is coming into play the reader needs to make sure they know both sides of the story. In the conflict between Dick Black and Jill McCabe it would be wise to look up both candidates and understand their background and what they stand for. The more you know about the candidates, the more you can see when they try to distract voters from the real arguments at hand with ad hominem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrats-call-virginia-state-senator-sexist-for-doctormother-tweet/2015/09/25/5fd39d64-63b2-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

Sharpshooters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/terry-mcauliffe-gun-control-virginia-shooting_us_55ddd4fbe4b0a40aa3acea2f

The link above is an article and video of Governor Terry McAuliffe making a call for stricter gun control. It can be argued that Governor Terry McAuliffe uses more than just one logical fallacy when making a call for stricter gun laws in Virginia. The logical fallacy I would like to focus on is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is defined as cherry picking data to suit an argument or finding a pattern to fit a presumption. This fallacy can affect our culture by presenting data that leads the public to believe something that may not be accurate due to incomplete sets of data. McAuliffe only uses one case (a shooting at Virginia tech. in 2007) as support that Virginia has a long history of gun violence. What he could have done to help his call for stricter gun laws is reference more than just one case of gun violence to support what he said. When reading or listening to proposals and or arguments make sure to listen for the facts that are used. After listening to those facts it is important to do research on them and see if there is more evidence to support the claim or if those facts were used in a texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Between Classes

I use Apple News to research the latest information about sports, music, and fashion collected from my interest and favorite websites. A majority of my internet browsing is done in the morning, between classes, and before shifts. Apple News provides the information in using a  simplistic structure with elegant images providing quick reads from top authors websites. My favorites can be organized into three categories; sports, music, and fashion.

Saturday Down South, Bleacher Report, and SB Nation are sites I follow and read about when looking for the latest information on sports entertainment. Writers use casual writing styles and a relaxed structure for to provide new information to the everyday sports fanatic.


Hot New Hip Hop, SoundCloud, and Complex are sites I follow when searching for the latest heat or low-key anthem. Users can comment on internet post to discuss their ideas on a particular song or video. Writers use a knowledgeable tone and appealing layout to draw the dedicated music lover.


GQ, Gents Lounge, and Bevel Code are sites I follow when reading topics about fashion and grooming. These sites rely on pictures to present the latest trends and tips to dressing and behaving like a true gentleman.

What I use the internet for

Hi y'all!

      Usually when I use the internet I am doing a few things at one. I almost always have Pandora radio running in the back ground. Pandora gives me something to listen to and helps me keep focused. On top of Pandora I will have Blackboard up so I can work on school. I do a lot of research for my psychology class so many of the tabs I have open are research journals. When I am on just for fun I'll have Netflix and YouTube opened as well.  For the most part If i not using one of those sites I'm usually not on the internet if I can help it; the internet is great but I prefer being outdoors better.

Where Do I Go On The Web

Hi Guys, When open any web browser, I have three websites I go to which are YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. I am a music/sports person so I am always interested in finding videos, news, pretty much anything EXCITING for me to watch. One of my favorite videos to watch is KSI a YouTube famous guy who post videos about anything literally ANYTHING! But I also like to listen to new songs that are out and also old songs. On twitter I usually just tweet, retweet and watch some vine videos people post on there that are so hilarious. I got about three group chats on both twitter and facebook. I dont usally be on facebook anymore due to the fact that it just got old. Now my parents even have facebook and most of my family members so I only go on there to talk to them and maybe wish my friends who have birthdays. So pretty much those three websites is where I go on the web,