Everyone will agree that any campaign speech is the last place to look for lack of bias or other forms or sound, valid legal arguments. Campaign speeches are one of the most bias laden, fallacy suffering, rhetoric filled discussions one can find. This classic example from Citizen Kane was meant to point out exactly such posturing. Note the rhetorical hyperbole used to introduce Kane. He is not just a man; instead, he is “the fighting liberal,” and “the friend of the working man.” The hyperbole continues with Kane who paints himself as only having entered the campaign to save the public from lies, corruption, and deceit. The rhetorical devices also describe Jim Getty’s as a corrupt party boss and even as a criminal.
Since the election has not even begun, this is certainly fallacious, and specifically the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. It is a purely personal consideration, argumentum ad hominem , Kane neglects to ever mention specific policies of Getty’s that he disagrees with he seem to have a personal vendetta against Getty’s. The next fallacy is Kane and 39’s assertion and wanting to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid and underfed followed by the disclaimer that he and 39’s where too busy to make specific promises. This technique is making circular arguments is a fallacy known as circulus in probando. I also recognized several rhetorical devises in this speech; these devices include hyperbole, parallelism, horse laugh, and euphemism. The hyperbole I have identified exists in this sentence,” with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Getty’s political machine now in complete control of the government of this State!” This is an exaggeration because his only purpose is not to point out the flaws in Jim W. Getty he wants to win the election and become the Governor for other reasons as well. I also noticed a parallelism in this speech.
For instance, when the campaigner is introducing...