Obama’s Inauguration ceremonial Speech

本文是对奥巴马就职演讲内容的Straw Man argument分析。演讲内容中出现了许多谬误，本文列举7个。虽然这次演讲让奥巴马得到了人们的认可，但他在未来的演讲中应该更加注意论据跟逻辑，这样才能使其演讲更有说服力

The straw man argument in President Obama’s Inauguration ceremonial Speech

It is widely believed that President Barack Obama has strong and persuasive public speaking skills. His argument and statement has received positive comments and well- deserved reputation in general. It is an irrefutable fact that the 57th Presidential Inauguration ceremonial speech was very impressive since President Obama delivered his argumentative speech
Nevertheless, is the persuasive argument in Obama’s speech really reasonable or sometimes make use of the fallacy argument? In other words, his inclination to argue against the point that no one has. From the perspective of argument and logic, this unreasonable inclination is regarded as a straw man argument. In fact, the straw man argument was prevalent in public speech of President Barack Obama. To be more specific, he even came up a new straw man argument with every new point. Take the 57th Presidential Inauguration ceremonial speech by Obama as an example, it is not difficult to find a straw man fallacy in among the words and between the lines.

Straw Man argument 1
As stated in the speech “For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias?”
The President’s description about muskets and militias is rather elaborate words instead of a statement. It is very obvious the first part of the sentence is a straw man fallacy. It is impossible for people to argue for an entire decomposition of government power and merely the Americans as a coherence and community is obligated to protect the homeland or executing any other mission under the current political circumstance. Otherwise, the matter should lies in how much obligations private citizens should burden. The claim “private citizens cannot handle all responsibilities” is not identical to saying “private citizens cannot handle any responsibility at all.”
Straw Man argument 2:
Similarly, the other argument that “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores” should also be carefully examined.
This argument is attacking the obvious false perspectives that no one believes. It is already an irrefutable fact that a single person cannot complete these alone. However, it cannot infer that government have to get involved if someone do not have the ability to do something by himself. For example, if an architect was unable to build a skyscraper independently. Engineers, workers and other related people are essential to help and step in for completing this mission. But the claim that he cannot fulfill this alone is not the same as that private citizens cannot agree to do this cooperatively if government do not help.
Straw Man argument 3:
“We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.  For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.”
Actually, nobody was ever trying to come up with the idea that completely giving up looking after the elder generations. Simultaneously, the idea that completely neglecting the requirements of younger genera is not proposed by anyone. What matters is the extent that government can burden to invest in each aspect. What is more important, neither the younger nor the elder generation is holding the concept regarding complete abolishment of projects that protect the old generations or the physically challenged people.
Straw Man argument 4:
“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”
As for this argument, the straw man can still be tracked. This argument is discussing global warming and combines two fallacies in one. Since nobody have the confidence that they can escape the effect of natural disasters entirely, it is no doubt a straw man fallacy. In addition, and it evades the question by adding the condition that dealing with global climate changes will correspondingly tackle the floods, droughts and other natural disasters.
Straw Man argument 5:
“We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.” President presents his criticism about state security do not trust everlasting war. Maybe they will trust in seeing some wars by their conclusions, or waging other “necessary” wars. However, no one believes in everlasting war for its own sake.
Straw Man argument 6:
“For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.”
People who holding the argument against actions like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, that declare to be committed to guaranteeing identical salaries for women, usually do so since they have considered that trial lawyers can make use of current laws to make excuses to plead. Their concept that they think women should receive low salary is not the reason.
Straw Man argument 7:
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
Similarly, this line is attacking the point that no one holds: there is no mainstream politicians who claim that gays should not be protected by laws. Actually, homosexuals shares the completely identical law protections as heterosexuality. The question regarding the right to get married is definitely the legal protection.
This argument supposes that the sole advantage and benefits for marriage is to protect love. That is definitely right, but it is the argument that all opponent of homosexual marriage subscribe to. As a consequence, supposing that they are against homosexual marriage because of opposition to love is a fallacy.
In conclusion, there are many fallacies, especially straw man argument in President Obama’s speech although Obama has received good reputation in delivering public speech. Obama and his team should pay more attention to the argument and logic in his speech in the future. Only in this case, his speech can be more persuasive and precise.
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。