3 funny topics

- Bob Dylan v. John Lennon
- Woody Allen v. Quentin Tarantino
- Cats v. Chicago

Analysis of Second Presidential Debate

The second presidential debate from last Sunday was far more intense than the first one. This time, both of the Candidates were allowed to walk on the stage, which added more factors to the debate including body language, changing position on stage, and interaction with the audience. 

Both of the candidates was far more aggressive than the last time. They utilized a lot of ad hominem fallacy, attacking each other about their personal life instead of discussing the policies they are about to apply if they were elected president. Hillary Clinton once again said that Donald Trump "lives in an alternative reality", while Donald Trumps attacks her for deleting her emails. The application of ad hominem fallacy is a sword of Damocles -- by using it, the candidates put both of their own opinions in potential danger. While they attacked each others personalities and moralities, they were not really pointing out the flaws in their opponents'  ideologies. As a result, the audience would not be capable of understanding what is they advantages of their own methods. Moreover, making the audience believe that their opponents were bad is not going to cause much effective difference: the candidates probably did not realize that one do not to be morally flawless to be a good president. According to the Prince by Machiavelli, a good ruler sometimes have to neglect the disciplines of morality in order to rule the country in a better way. Ad hominem is a very bad strategies, which utilized a lot by both candidates.

Another fallacy which was employed by both candidates was avoiding the questions. For more than once both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tried to dodge the questions, coming up with somethings which sound similarly nature or make sense in someway, but are not logically correct. For example, when they were asked to give an opinion on what is good on the other candidate, Hillary Clinton went directly to talk about her appreciation to Donald Trump’s daughter — which is completely irrelevant to what a person Trump is. (Or may be it has a little bit to do with this because this indicates that Trump is a good father, but once again being a good father has nothing to do with being a good president.) Consequently, Clinton “wittily” dodged the question without pointing out any of Donald Trumps strength. However, what is not so witty is that she did not realize is that she dodged the question so obvious that it only took credibility down of her. Because she essentially refused to regard her opponent’s advantages seriously, the voters probably will not trust her judgement and capability as a president any more. On the other hand, Donald Trump, when he was asked the same question of what his opponent’s advantage was, he said that Hillary Clinton never gave up and fight for the things that she believe in. This might not be the perfect answer, but at least is over surpassed what was done by Hillary Clinton.

A good thing, if I have to admit, did by both candidates is that they were both concentrated and both responded adeptly and confidently. On stage, they appear like leaders. Even if they fail to be elected president, they will still be leaders in their own field with the quality of confidence and assertiveness they possess. 

Notes on Second Debate

- This debate, comparing to the first one, is more free-style because both candidates are allowed to walk around.

- They are both dodging a lot of questions. What's worse is that they are so obvious. For example, Hillary Clinton talked about Trumps kids when she was asked to talk about Trumps advantages.

- Both of them are very aggressive. Trump is more outrageous by saying Hillary Clinton should be "in jail." It is really a bad strategy for them to attack on each other(e.g. Hillary's email). Audience expect to listen to their policies instead of what kind of person they are. One do not have be a flawless person to run a country.

- I am a little bit disappointed. I remember the debate by Obama from last presidential campaign. In terms of debating skills, he is way more professional.

Rest of the world no strict rules.
Family rather than government.
Kids won't be so curious because they have access to it.
Decrease unsafe drinking activity. Starting at a young age, young adult will not be provoked to drink and drive when they get the license.

Lower the risk of breaking the law to get a drink.
The teenagers will drink no matter what the law is.
Drinking is an enjoyable activity. Eliminating the age to drink will decrease the alcohol induced injuries.
Eliminating the drinking age reflects unique demographic
Good for economy.

5 most famous debate topics

1. Homework is a waste of time

2. Assisting suicide should be legalized

3. Legalization the sale of human organs

4. Advertising is harmful and thus should be banned

5. Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children

- Appeal to Force: uses force to threat the other which is irrelevant to logic
- Red Herring: bring up irrelevant things to disturb audience from the original issue
- Slippery Slope: lead to a bigger topic(exaggeration) with every step that taken.
- Appeal to popularity(bandwagon): say what people like.(everybody support it, so it is true)
- False Cause: reason does not explain the fact.

LOGIC FALLACIES

Circular reasoning
- AKA paradoxical thinking, circular argument, circular cause and consequence, circular definition
- Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.
- Logical Form:

X is true because of Y.

Y is true because of X.

- Example #2:

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.  This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000.  Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate.  You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.”  Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.

Exception: Some philosophies state that we can never escape circular reasoning because the arguments always come back to axioms or first principles, but in those cases, the circles are very large and do manage to share useful information in determining the truth of the proposition.

Tip: Do your best to avoid circular arguments, as it will help you reason better because better reasoning is often a result of avoiding circular arguments.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning


This is a interesting logic trick when someone uses a reason which is based on its own fact to explain the very fact. It is often very hard to detect because they might sound logical. This is called circular reasoning.