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.