A popular saying that appears a lot in second-rate American comedies says 'If you can't convince them - confuse them' (If you can't convince them - confuse them) and really many speakers use logical fallacies to confuse the discussion when they feel they have no way to win and they try not to lose  

Logical failures of this type can be glaring and embarrassing - for example when Bill Clinton blurted out that the phrase 'I did not have sex with this woman, Miss Lewinsky' referred to full sexual relations only - but can also be sophisticated and subtle enough that most listeners will not notice it - for example as in the password The marketing 'the only toothpaste that gives caries protection and the unique taste', a sentence that sounds like it promises exclusivity on caries protection and in fact promises exclusivity on the unique taste (great wisdom...) combined with caries protection (something most toothpastes promise).

 Use of multiple meanings

This group of logical fallacies makes use of the gap between the literal meaning of words we use to build an argument and the factual meaning those words are supposed to represent. The extreme example is that of Bill Clinton who was caught in a lie and when he tried to wriggle out he said "well, it depends what the meaning of 'is' is"

Plurium interrogationum - oversimplification

This fallacy appears when someone demands a simple answer to a complex question. This logical fallacy is the trademark of demagogues.
"Will raising taxes benefit the economy or not? Yes or No?"

Amphiboly – double meaning

Here, concepts are used that can be attributed several meanings, and thus the speaker can use an extreme concept and pretend that his intentions were not understood.
For example, Yasser Arafat often called for jihad and sacrifice, but his commentators in Israel often pointed out that the word "jihad" can also be interpreted as a moral struggle (for example, going on a diet) due to the weight of the phrase 'crusade'. Another example is the way politicians from the American right often talked about 'law and order' when the intention was to play on their voters' fear of African Americans. In both cases, the effectiveness of using the logical fallacy depends on the audience's understanding of the allusions.

Accent - changing the flavor in an argument

It is a linguistic game that is only possible in oral rhetoric, and it relies on the ability to emphasize different words in a sentence. In this way, politicians manage to say very extreme things while emphasizing the moderate words
"Let's not talk Sera In our friend" vs. "Let's not talk bad in our friend“.
It is quite difficult to explain this logical fallacy in a written article, so anyone who wants to can watch Marlon Brando play Marcus Antonius In Shakespeare's play 'Julius Caesar' And succeeds in inciting the crowd against Brutus, when throughout the speech he calls Brutus and his supporters 'men of honor' in a tone that gradually changes from a tone of respect, to a tone of skepticism, to a tone of slander, to a tone of hatred.

 Change subject

Red herring - diverting the discussion

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the topic under discussion, so that the general attention is diverted from the points raised, and towards another conclusion. This method can work on the audience but sometimes it works better on opposing speakers who lose their balance.
An example of a discussion that distracts the public is "You claim that the death penalty does not really deter criminals, but what about the victims of crime? How do you think the remaining family members feel when they see that the person who murdered their son remains in prison at their expense? Is it okay for them to pay money to feed their son's killer?"
Conversely, an example of distracting the speaker is the way in which every time Ben Gurion If he was caught up in a coalition crisis or a political embarrassment, he would make sure to include the words 'Altalana' and 'The Holy Cannon' in his speech in the Knesset and then relax in his chair and watch Menachem Begin spits fire and brimstone, and the media forgets about the original problem. On a personal level, I worked for several years with a debate partner who was a militant feminist, and every time one of our opponents mentioned the issue of women's rights (even in a debate on Animal experiments or Tuition increase) She would waste half the time allotted to her to protect the honor of girls of her kind.

Ignoratio elenchi - a good answer to another question

This fallacy is basically presenting one argument, but passionately asserting the right of another argument. So your argument has no logical connection with the conclusion.
For example, a Scientologist might say that he is going to explain why Scientology is true. If he then claims at length that Scientology helps a great many people, no matter how true his argument may be, it does not help him to show that Scientology is true.
Unfortunately, such irrelevant arguments tend to actually succeed in their work. This is probably because they make people look at the conclusion they were asked to accept in a more positive light. 

That is not the question

This approach is not part of speaking in front of an audience in the classical sense, but is more concerned with appearing in the media (on radio and television, mainly) and in which when the speaker receives a question that is uncomfortable for him, he avoids it by answering a so-called 'more important' question.
This approach was brought to Israel by Bibi Netanyahu from the United States, and for several years allowed him almost complete freedom in media interviews in front of interviewers who did not know how to deal with him. Over the years, so many politicians have adopted the system that today it is considered too transparent, and the phrase 'that's not the question' is seen as a cliché to try to evade. The interviewers, for their part, have learned that they must close the question from all its ends and nowadays they ask questions the length of a short speech.

Register now for the rhetoric and persuasion course