Everybody who has watched a Presidential Debate, or any sort of debate, has heard a logical fallacy in use. But did these citizens know what they were hearing? Logical fallacies include elements such as complex questions (questions that hint at something within the question), slippery slope (when a statement is made that does not have a logical ending), ad hominem (when a person’s character is attacked), and veiled threat (an allusion to a threat being made). I wrote a letter to Donald Trump regarding his use of these fallacies.

Dear Mr. Trump,

I found that throughout the third presidential debate you used multiple logical fallacies to bring Hillary down, instead of explaining your true opinions and showing what you would do as President of the United States. This hurt your chances of winning my support as a voter.

Within the first minutes of the debate, while answering the question asked by moderator Chris Wallace, “Mr. Trump, your reaction? And particularly on this issue of late-term, partial-birth abortions,”  you used weasel words to attack Hillary Clinton and her stance on abortion. You stated, “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.” This shows your stance on abortion. You are obviously against it; however, I believe this statement could have been made in a less attacking way to both Clinton and those that have had abortions in the past.

Another factor during this part of the debate that leads me to this letter is that you stated these abortions occurred “in the ninth month,” which is untrue. According to Jen Gunter of Vox, a doctor trained to complete abortions, abortions after 24 weeks do not happen, and if they do, it’s under special circumstances for the health of the mother or unborn child. She stated, “After 24 weeks, if a pregnant person is sick enough that she needs to deliver for her health, obstetricians either induce labor or perform a C-section…” This basically means that the mother has the baby alive and then the baby is not resuscitated. This is not an abortion because according to the dictionary, an abortion is “the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.” These statements you made were false, and, as a possible future President, you should not be making false, slippery slope statements that could mislead the general public. Yes, it is our job as a citizenry to stay informed, but if we cannot trust our future President, how are we supposed to stay informed correctly? You need to stop doing this and start changing your statements so you’re sharing true information. Our votes will be won with facts, not untrue opinions.

Following on your path of attacking Clinton, you attacked her regarding her husband, which is guilty association. While discussing border control and immigration, you brought previous President and husband of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, into the mix by saying, “The NAFTA deal signed by her husband is one of the worst deals ever made of any kind, signed by anybody. It’s a disaster.” This is not a solid, concrete attack against Clinton. It simply brought in her relations and their choices, not what Hillary Clinton would decide to do or what deals she would sign. By associating these two people together, you both confuse and upset voters. This logical fallacy attacks Hillary in a way that does not truly represent her and her politics.

During this debate, you used a logical fallacy called straw man multiple times. This fallacy draws attention away from the argument by stating something else. While fighting over who was ‘fit’ and ‘unfit’ to be President, you brought up a quote from other people. You stated, “John Podesta said some horrible things about you, and, boy, was he right. He said some beauties. And you know, Bernie Sanders, he said you have bad judgment. You do.” What other people say about someone has no relation to their ability to do their job, especially as a political figure. Instead of attacking Clinton regarding things other figures had said about her, you easily could have brought up specific moments that showed, as you stated, she is unfit to be the President.

Along with attacking Clinton, you used her statements to draw the viewer away from the real issue at hand. This is called red herring. While discussing issues of gun violence in the United States, you brought up your endorsement from the National Rifle Association. Along with this statement and topic, you turned the attention back to Clinton and one of her statements: “I don’t know if Hillary was saying it in a sarcastic manner, but I’m very proud to have the endorsement of the NRA.” By stating this, it is like you are attempting to take some of the credibility from Clinton. You do this by claiming she uses sarcasm, when that was not hinted at with her tone of voice.

One of the most used logical fallacies you used during this debate was undistributed middle. You probably did this without even realizing it. Multiple times you said something along the lines of when I become President, this will happen. Although to many, that sounds great and that you’re going to get something done, you’re leaving out a crucial part of your statement. How are you going to do these things? You cannot simply become President and write laws and sign deals just because you have the title of President. It simply does not work that way.

Overall, after reviewing the large amounts of logical fallacies you used during this debate, I realize you did not have a lot of information on how you are going to “Make America Great Again.” You say you will do this, you make your supporters believe you, but you show them no plans to make this happen. I cannot support a man who attacks his opponent repeatedly while not even sharing his plan. You don’t have my vote, Mr. Trump.

Sincerely,

Hannah Borst