#onlybinay

Yet another Binay ad...

“Sino ba talagang tumulong at patuloy na tutulong sa atin (Who has already helped and will continue helping us)?” - Fallacy of Antecedent

“‘Di ‘ba ‘yung presidenteng nognog, pandak, at laki rin sa hirap ang maghahatid sa atin tungo sa ginhawa (Isn’t the president who is dark-skinned, short, and who grew up in poverty like us, will bring us to progress)?” -Argmentum ad Populum (attempting to sway  popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than reason)

“Kanino giginhawa ang buhay? Only Binay!” (really??kay Binay lang ba talaga???)

FINDING STRENGTH IN BINAY’S ARGUMENTS

“Bakit po sa Makati marami paring informal settlers?”

Binay be like: Sabihin mo sakin nasaan ang informal settlers. (Burden of Proof)

~ Nakakaloka, puntahan po natin alis tayo sa forum anes? Burden of proof ang kadalasang ginagamit ng mga tao pag idinidiin nila sayo na magpakita ka ng ebindensya or else, sabi nga ni Daniel Padilla, “shut up nalang kayo”. 

Binay: Alam mo partner, mga 3% or 5% nalang ang informal settlers samin sa Makati. (Proof surrogates)

~ Ayan diba, inamin mo din. Kamusta naman ang 3 or 5% na statistical data? Ano kayang study ang gumawa niyan. Medyo taken-for-granted natin ang rhetorical device na ito kasi akala natin numbers are equal to truths. Hindi man lang natin iniisip kung gaano kavalid ang numbers. And don’t be fooled by numbers, existence of informal settlers is still significant kahit 0.1% pa yan. 

Red herring

~ So if you claim that you have answered the questions so many times, does that give you a reason to dodge the question? Nope. This is one of the easiest ways Binay gets away with issues. The Red Herring happens when the speaker attempts to distract the audience by deviating from the topic at hand.