In any conversational or speech event, a lot of fallacies present themselves. The speakers might not be aware of the usage of these fallacies, but the fallacies appear even in some areas that are not anticipated. In as much as fallacies are said to affect a person’s speech negatively, some fallacies contribute to the rapport between the speaker and listener; they help the speaker connect well with the audience, and this contributes to a better reception and retention of the message.
Glen’s Explication of Mitt Romney’s Speech
In this show, Glen Beck explains Mitt Romney’s speech and various fallacious statements are evident. First, Glen starts by asking a question that he answers himself. He assumes that people will have the same opinion as himself, and he proceeds to negate the question he asks about Romney’s speech being the best. This fallacy is called Begging the question; this is because the speaker, Glen, assumes that people have the same opinion on Romney’s speech. All people do not have the same opinion, and Glen is wrong.
Glen Beck also engages in another fallacy known as Ad verecundium. This fallacy appeals to a greater power to drive people to believe or find credibility in a certain view. In this show, Glen appeals to a supernatural power, Jesus, to convince people that Mitt Romney has the American answer.
Glen also involves Ad hominem, a fallacy that tends to look at the personality of someone rather than the speech, in this show. He diverts from the topic, and he starts to give some personal views on the candidate.
Glen also uses Ad populum to appeal to the people on the best candidate to vote in the elections. This fallacy appeals to the masses where the views of the majority are respected. Glen wishes to make the few undecided people to choose the contender with the most support.
In this show, Glen also invokes another fallacy, Either or, and he gives some few things that are likely to happen. For instance, he explains that people can either take Mitt Romney as a man with a very big dream, or they can see him as an unrealistic man.
The other fallacy used in this show is Non sequitur. This fallacy is evident because Glen moves from one topic to another, and at some point, he leaves the listeners to make conclusions on the issues discusses. This fallacy gives mixed feelings, and the audience feels compelled to think more about the ideas under discussion.
Fallacies in the O’Reilly Factor
In this interview, O’Reilly and Charles discuss Mitt Romney’s debate, and they assume that Romney made a mistake by not mentioning some things. They engage in a fallacy, Slippery Slope; they assume that people will see the mistake and fail to vote for Mitt; the two believe that that mistake will affect Mitt.
O’Reilly also uses many of the fallacies discussed above, and in all instances, these fallacies match, in usage, the fallacies above. This shows that fallacies are internationally used by most people, and people might not be aware of this since they appear mostly in the analytical stage.
The other three fallacies, Post-hoc (ergo propter hoc), Red Herring and Straw Man are not evident in these shows since the three fallacies appear, mostly, in personal conversations. These fallacies appear in cases where people linger on personal matters, and this differs in these shows. However, the three fallacies can be used in such instances as when a person involved, directly, is being interviewed. In such cases, personal reactions are probable, and the speaker can engage in the three fallacies.