# The Debates: Cite? Fallacies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-debates-cite-fallacies/267024 "2004-10-01T13:54:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-debates-cite-fallacies/267024/21 "2004-10-01T20:53:16Z")
Good interpretations, but not _exactly_ what I had in mind. I’m not the dictator of the board or anything, though, so feel free to ignore what I say here and go with the scores above 🙂 For the first score, I was looking more for scoring actual _cites_… but I guess giving data to back up a claim should count, too. Simple assertions get a nil score (things like “We can do better”), and cites (and now evidence) that turned out to be untrue (like misquotes or incorrect numbers) would get a negative, I guess. For the second, I was looking for logical fallacies–not just incorrect statements, but actual fallacies. Let me see what I get if I pick 'em apart: > [@Kerry](#): > > I can make American safer than President Bush has made us. > > And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe. > > I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances. > > I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances. Through here I count 0 points in either category. > [@Kerry](#): > > This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we’re now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs. On reconsideration, these numbers go into the “evidence” category. I score “90 percent of the casualties” as definitely true; if we’re at 88%, that’s 90% if you round to one significant figure. That’s absolutely fine in my book. For the 90% of the costs, I’ll need to know the total costs. I see $140 billion (or $120 billion, per [factcheck](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253)) for our costs; that would mean we need a total in the $130 billion to $160 billion range for the statement to be accurate. Does anyone have a total-cost-of-Iraq figure? We can’t judge the “90% of the costs” statement without knowing the total costs. So far I give him a 1 on my evidence scale and a 0 on the fallacy scale, with a sneaking suspicion that he’d get another point for evidence if we could find the total cost of the Iraq operation. > [@Kerry](#): > > I think that’s wrong, and I think we can do better. > > I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America. > > I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table. > > We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves, and I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections. > > All of these, and especially homeland security, which we’ll talk about a little bit later. I don’t see any actual evidence or logical fallacies in there, so that leaves Kerry with scores of 1 (possibly 2) on the evidence side, and 0 on the fallacy side. Now for Bush: > [@Bush](#): > > I, too, thank the University of Miami, and say our prayers are with the good people of this state, who’ve suffered a lot. > > September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And since that day, our nation has been on a multi-pronged strategy to keep our country safer. 0/0 so far. > [@Bush](#): > > We pursued Al Qaida wherever Al Qaida tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we’re after them. To fully judge this, I’d need a list of “known Al Qaida leaders,” and a list of those we’ve “brought to justice” (I’ll accept “killed or captured” as a definition of “brought to justice”). The general concensus seems to be that this “75%” figure only counts those who were leaders as of 9/11. If that’s true, Bush gets a -1 on the evidence scale for this statement. > [@Bush](#): > > We’ve upheld the doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist. > > And the Taliban are no longer in power. Ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election. Nope, not 10 million people. There have been 10 million registrations, but not by 10 million people. That’s another -1, for a score so far of -2/0. > [@Bush](#): > > In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it. We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Technically, the Saddam mention is a non-sequitor if we don’t have evidence that he was a threat. However, both candidates concede that he was a threat (although Bush sees him as _the_ threat, while Kerry ranks him much lower), so I’ll give Bush +1 on that. > [@Bush](#): > > Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice. I’ll give him +1 for Libya; even though he probably had little to do with it, that is evidence that we’re pursuing “our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction.” However, A.Q. Khan being arrested doesn’t seem to me to count as his network being brought to justice. I’m giving him -1 on that, for a total score so far of -1/0. > [@Bush](#): > > And, as well, we’re pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want. 0/0 on that one. Totals for round 1 by my accounting: Kerry: 1 (2?) / 0 Bush: -1/0 I’ll give people time to disagree with that, then come back in an hour or so with round 2… ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-debates-cite-fallacies/267024/22 "2004-10-01T22:30:39Z")
The first part isn’t 100% settled, but I think we have enough to move right along to question #2: > [@debates.org](#): > > LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. > > Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack? > > BUSH: No, I don’t believe it’s going to happen. I believe I’m going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I’ve shown the American people I know how to lead. > > I have – I understand everybody in this country doesn’t agree with the decisions I’ve made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. > > People out there listening know what I believe. And that’s how best it is to keep the peace. > > This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate. And that’s what they are. This is a group of killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia, that’ll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake our will. > > We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren. > > The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty. > > And that’s what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan. > > Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It’s a phenomenal statistic. They’re given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women. > > In Iraq, no doubt about it, it’s tough. It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That’s why they’re fighting so vociferously. > > They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because they tried to beat us and they didn’t. And they’re showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They’re trying to defeat us. > > And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. > > LEHRER: Ninety second response, Senator Kerry. > > KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. > > But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. > > This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America. > > I’m proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower’s son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father – all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. > > Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn’t use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-debates-cite-fallacies/267024/23 "2004-10-01T23:25:02Z")
In a related vein: [CNN’s fact-check list.](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.fact.check.ap/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-debates-cite-fallacies/267024/24 "2004-10-02T00:55:17Z")
> [@George Bush](#): > > And the Taliban are no longer in power. The quotes in this [Kerry campaign fact sheet](http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37066) say otherwise. For example: > [@](#): > > Taliban is Resurgent: “Nearly two years after their defeat the Taliban has re-emerged as a growing security threat” (United States Institute for Peace, 3/04) > > House Republicans Confirm Taliban Remains Threat to Security: “The greatest threat in the country remains Al Qaida, Taliban and other indigenous military groups. These groups operate mostly on the Pakistan border and in the south. U.S., coalition and Afghan combat forces are positioned and employed to defeat these threats.” (Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), Remarks to House Committee on International Relations, 9/23/04) > > […] > > “A picture of Afghanistan’s been painted I think overly optimistic. You read the newspapers, what you’re talking about doesn’t even exist from the reports that I read about what’s really going on. And when you hear about Doctors Without Borders leaving after having been there through the Russian occupation, the U.N. wants to leave. Protection of the president is very precarious; we don’t know what’ll come of that. The airport’s getting bombed. There’s estimates that 90 percent of the country – at least a very large percent of the country, is under the occupation of the Taliban and the warlords.” (Rep. Paul (R-TX)., Remarks to House Committee on International Relations, 9/23/04) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-debates-cite-fallacies/267024/25 "2004-10-02T23:43:48Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > The first part isn’t 100% settled, but I think we have enough to move right along to question #2: A quick note: if you put the candidates’ words in quote marks, we can’t “reply with quote” successfully. Can you italicize them or something instead? > [@](#): > > LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. > > Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack? > > BUSH: No, I don’t believe it’s going to happen. I believe I’m going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I’ve shown the American people I know how to lead. > > I have – I understand everybody in this country doesn’t agree with the decisions I’ve made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. > > People out there listening know what I believe. And that’s how best it is to keep the peace. Although I quibble with some of these ideas, I don’t think that they’re factually coherent enough to say anything about. No issues here. > [@](#): > > This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate. And that’s what they are. This is a group of killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia, that’ll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake our will. He’s referring to the schoolchildren in Russia, lumping them in with the killers in Iraq. I do not believe they can coherently be called “a group,” and this gets at the heart of one of the things he’s trying to do: he’s trying to tie other horrific terrorist events to the Iraq war. -1 on logic, I’d say, so 0/-1. > [@](#): > > We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren. > > The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty. > > And that’s what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan. Nothing so far. > [@](#): > > Ten million citizens have registered to vote. False, as discussed. -1/-1. > [@](#): > > It’s a phenomenal statistic. They’re given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women. Does anyone know where the source for this fact is? I’m guessing that this is correct, if you say that 41% of the **registrations** were done by women; on the radio today, I heard that a lot of Afghani women mistakenly thought they were signing up for food rationing cards, and were signing up multiple times so they could get more food for their families. But I have no idea whether that’s true; although i can’t assign the point, I’m guessing he’ll get this one right, which will eventually push him up to 0/-1. For now, he stands at -1/-1. > [@](#): > > In Iraq, no doubt about it, it’s tough. It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That’s why they’re fighting so vociferously. > > They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because they tried to beat us and they didn’t. And they’re showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They’re trying to defeat us. > > And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. Nothing substantive here, I think. > [@](#): > > LEHRER: Ninety second response, Senator Kerry. > > KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. > > But we also have to be smart, Jim. Rhetoric. > [@](#): > > And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 commission did indeed say this, to the best of my knowledge. +1/0. However, there were multiple reasons for going to war; although the WMD reason was paramount, I do not believe it was mentioned as the sole reason, despite what [some of our local conservatives claimed at the time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3271563&postcount=38). So These cancel out, to 0/0. > [@](#): > > This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America. > > I’m proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower’s son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father – all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. These all seem to me to be legitimate appeals to authority; what do y’all think, and should they be counted together or separately? If together, we’re up to 0/1; if separately, we’re up to 0/+4. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn’t use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That’s wrong. We don’t know for certain that we had him surrounded. -1/+1. The president did rely on warlords. 0/+1. Thoughts? Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-debates-cite-fallacies/267024.md?page=1)