Sarah Palin's Top Three Logical Fallacies

The 2008 vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden (D) and Gov. Sarah Palin was widely called a win for Biden. While many Americans thought Palin did better than expected, most were severely under whelmed. Some say it was her 'folksy' approach to speaking, others the winking at the camera. When the debate is viewed through the lens of history one reason will stand above all others: Palin did not display a basic understanding of common debate structure. Most of her arguments are what is known in the lexicon of debate as a 'logical fallacy.' A logical fallacy is a poor conclusion derived from poor reasoning. These are 'debate-enders.' There are several types of logical fallacies and Gov. Sarah Palin is guilty of many.

Argumentum ad hominem - This logical fallacy is one of the most common. It means 'argument directed at the person.' When an idea is attacked by attacking the character of the person promoting it. When Gov. Palin gave this quote:

'Now, Barack Obama, of course, he's pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line, not having that proof for the American people to know that his commitment, too, is, you know, put the partisanship, put the special interests aside, and get down to getting business done for the people of America.'

she implied the Obama's platform was invalid simply because he voted with his party, suggesting he is being loyal to his party over the American people. By attacking his character instead of his stances Palin makes herself look weaker.

Argumentum ad populum- meaning appeal to the public. This fallacy is marked by saying that because a good portion of the public supports something it must be true or right. Several times during the debate Gov. Palin suggested that the majority of the American people agreed with her stances, thereby making them correct. For example:

'We're tired of the old politics as usual. And that's why, with all due respect, I do respect your years in the U.S. Senate, but I think Americans are craving something new and different and that new energy and that new commitment that's going to come with reform.'

For one, it is nearly impossible to prove that the American people feel this way. Secondly, this argument assumes the a McCain/Palin ticket will usher in a new era of politics, which is doubtful considering McCain would be the oldest and most seasoned presidential-elect in American history.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - or 'with this, therefore because of this.' This fallacy occurs when somebody takes two simultaneous events and assumes because they occur together that they have a cause/effect relationship.

'Sen. Biden, you would remember that, in that energy plan that Obama voted for, that's what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks. Your running mate voted for that.'

Palin said that Obama voting for the bill is what caused tax breaks for oil companies. Sen. Biden was quick to rebut this fallacious argument by explaining that while the bill did have a small percentage of tax breaks for energy companies it was not why he himself as well as Obama voted on it (it had sweeping alternative energy legislation attached). Therefore, Obama voting for the bill did not cause all the tax breaks given to oil companies, and it does not suggest Obama is in bed with the oil companies. It just happened to be a small part of a bill that matched Obama's energy policy in most other respects.

While Gov. Palin did not do a belly flop on the debate stage, she came off looking like an amateur compared to the slick delivery of Joe Biden. This is because of her basic ignorance of the rules of debate. If the fact that she refused to answer several questions presented to her wasn't enough, the steady stream of logical fallacies she spewed throughout the event are enough to signify that while she may be vying for one of the top offices in the country she would easily fail a basic high school debate course.