Journal Entry #8: Politics and Debate

Having recently returned from a Model United Nations conference in Istanbul, I have begun to ponder over the nature of reasoning and arguments in politics and debate.

One strategy that is commonly used in politics is “false dilemma,” which assumes that there are only two alternatives to a situation. Politicians often deceive voters by telling them that if they are not elected then there will be grave consequences. Ostensibly, voters only have two options – voting for the politicians or suffering the ‘bad’ alternative outcome.

Another strategy that arose multiple times during the MUN debates was “loaded questions,” such as, “does your country always place its people before its power?” This type of question provoked hesitated answers, where the responder would be admitting to something. These tactics are often used in politics, when a politician targets another politician by presenting him with a black and white question that poses two extremes.

One form of informal reasoning that is particularly prominent in debate is “ad hominem” (meaning “attack the man” in Latin), which targets the person rather than the argument. A politician might argue against another politician’s personal life, his customs and religious views, rather than his political views.

What I find particularly interesting is the fact that many people have a natural tendency and desire to categorize themselves as “democrats” or “republicans” or “conservatives”. This categorization and generalization of their views often leads them towards inherently adopting other new views of their political party, with little evaluative reasoning. I suppose it’s all just politics.