The Binay Chronicles

Dissidents of the Vice President 24/7

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

Binay: I will win by 4M votes

UNISAN, Quezon—Despite losing his lead in pre-election surveys, Vice President Jejomar Binay, presidential candidate of United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), told local candidates of his party

“Sa tantya ko katulad ng tantya ko noong pagkandidato ko noon ng vice president (in 2010), at the end of the day I think ay … lalamang ako ng nasa 4 na milyon (Just like 2010 when I ran for vice president, I estimate that I will win by a margin of about four million votes),” Binay told an assembly of UNA candidates in the province’s 39 towns and two cities.

Fallacy: Anecdote, using a personal or isolated personal experience as compelling as worthwhile evidence suggesting that a personal or unique experience can be applied to other circumstances.

While he won the last VP race, he cannot use the same experience to suggest about another race (presidential).

-mmKAY

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

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???)

-mmKAY

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

“Isang taon na nila akong pinagtutulungan. Masakit, malupit, pagka’t tao ay minamaliit.”

In this ad of Binay particularly in the line quoted above, we see him try to deliver an argument from pity, which is a type of fallacy based on emotions. We know that Binay is running for the presidency but instead of highlighting his platforms and ideas in his ads, he highlights certain emotional experiences that he claims he had while serving as the vice-president. In his first lines of this ad, he is trying to put emphasis to the bullying that he might have experienced under the current administration, which we might consider as a way for him to capture the pity of the audience.

“Dalawanpu’t-apat na hearing na puro hakahaka at malisya. Sa dami ng aming paliwanag at dokumentong pinadala hindi nila pinansin. Wala talagang balak pakinggan ang katotohanan. Iisa lang ang layunin, sirain ang aking apat na dekadang paglilingkod sa inyo.”

In the succeeding lines of Binay in this ad, he now uses red herring as a technique wherein he tries to deviate from the real issue and introduces a new one to cover up the real issue. In the recent years, the Binays have been facing accusations of corruption. However, he does not fully address this issue but instead draws the attention of the people to the things that he claims he has accomplished over the years of his service. He tries to drift the attention of the people to his achievements and successes instead of dealing with the real issue which is corruption.  

“Ngunit ang pinagdadaanan ko ay wala sa kalingkingan ng pagdurusa ninyo sa araw-araw. Ang pagtitiis at kawalan ng pag-asa kaya lalong tumitibay ang paninindigan ko na ipatupad ang tunay na pagbabago.”

The next lines of Binay could also be considered as a fallacy in the form of guilt trip. Here he is trying to project an image wherein he is burdened by guilt because the hardships that the Filipinos are experiencing do not compare to those that he has experienced. He now tries to shoulder this guilt by trying to bring upon change and betterment for the Filipino people. 

by maTINEdi

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

A snippet of Binay’s lifestory

In this Binay advertisement we see a reenactment of when Binay was only 9 years old and mourning the loss of his mother. In just a span of 30 seconds, we can see the use of several rhetorical devices and fallacies to capture the interest, emotions, and votes of those who will be viewing the video. Let's take a look at some of these rhetorical devices and fallacies:

Persuasion using visual images

The entirety of this Binay ad shows us a dramatic presentation of a child grieving over the loss of his mother. Just the event of a child losing his mother is already enough for people to feel pity over Binay for having experienced such tragic event. This is even more aggravated by the setting in which the scene took place together with Binay’s very dramatic voice-over and narration in the background. Judging by the looks of the scene, it is as if we are made to look at the image of a striving and poor family without the capability of bringing its members to a hospital if ever one of them gets sick -- the family of Jejomar Binay, in this particular case. This ad conveys a message that we should vote for Jejomar Binay because he has experienced the great losses that other Filipino families might have also experienced.

Hasty generalizations and rhetorical analogies

“ Ang buhay ko, katulad ng marami sa inyo. Kaya sino pa bang magtutulungan, kundi tayo.”

“Ang magpapaginhawa sayo, nagdaan din sa hirap mo.”

The quotes above are some of the lines uttered by Binay towards the end of the advertisement. While it is true that the Filipino population is predominantly poor, which Binay’s family also is as he claims, explicitly stating that his life is the same as many of the Filipino families is a hasty generalization. In this ad, he claims that he is coming from a poor family which who lost one of tis members. Thus, claiming that his family is the same as those of many is a hasty generalization. 

On another note, saying that since his and other Filipino families’ lives are the same hence they should be helping each other out is an exmple of a rhetorical analogies. He is trying to imply in this part that people with the same family experiences would be the only ones to help each other out and disregarding the possibly of families having different experiences and coming from different backgrounds helping each other. Similarly, the line “ang magpapaginhawa sayo, nagdaan din sa hirap mo” is also an example of rhetorical analogy. Here Binay is implying that the one who would help is the one who has experience all your sufferings, which is not entirely necessary. This line is disregarding the possibility of people who might have come from a better-off life to have the capability to help those who are in need. 

by: maTINEdi

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

REASONS TO VOTE FOR JEJOMAR BINAY

1. He is a lawyer.

~ "I see this as a reason why laws are not strictly enforced” (Cherry-picking). There are a lot of reasons why laws are not enoforced well. And besides, law enforcement is not a job of the President. Cherry picking happens when you support a claim while ignoring other evidence that tells us otherwise.

2. He’s from the grassroots.

~ “Pag galing sa hirap, talagang yung concern niya is to help the poor” (Baseless conclusion, appeal to poverty). He was unable to support his conclusion and just assumed that this argument works because Binay ‘was poor once’.

3. He has a good record. 

~ This clearly appeal to accomplishment and false analogy. Being a mayor of Makati is different from being a President. When he was Vice-President he wasn’t able to perform well because as he claims in a forum in UPLB, he has no function there. His accomplishments cannot be enough justification to vote for him.

4. Humor

~ What the... I don’t have to explain this. We need to talk about a president and not a comedian.

5. Political will

~ “It is evident na marami siyang natulungan sa Makati, hindi lang sa makati pati narin sa ibang parte ng bayan.” This uses appeal to accomplishments and proof surrogates. It would seem like saying “marami” means a significant number, but we cannot be sure actually. And again, Makati is one story, a whole country is another. He should’ve argued by enumerating instances where Binay showed strong political will and not rely on Makati arguments.

6. He made Makati advanced.

~ Again, appeal to accomplishments and cherry picking. Being able to make Makati advanced is based on a lot of reasons, not just because of Binay’s efforts. 

7. Local Chief Executive experience.

~ Point taken. Tama naman na kailangan natin ng someone with experience. Sige keri ko ito.

8. He is the Vice President.

~ This is appeal to authority. As I have pointed out earlier, Binay wan’t able to perform well as VP. So why should we base our vote on his position? 

9. Desperate

~ Whut. Appeal to emotion and other fallacies are used in his reasoning. Just watch his line of reasoning the fallacies are too obvious here. 

10. Social capitalism

~ Hasty generalization. Just because you claim that this works in Makati, it doesn’t mean it would work of an entire country. Makati is not an archipelago, doesn’t have a population of more than 100 million, and doesn’t have rich investors everywhere like Makati. 

by: VIENce Knowles

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

“Nakausap ko ang ating mga kababayan hindi lang sa mga lungsod, kundi maging sa kabukiran. Nakausap ko ang lahat ng sektor - mga relehiyoso, manggagawa, magsasaka, mangingisda, mga kabataan, mga kapatid nating muslim, at mga indigenous people. At iisa lang ang sinasabi nila: Si Jojo Binay ang iboboto nila sa Mayo a-nuwebe!”

HASTY GENERALIZATION

~ How I wish that I can do that. Talk to a few people and infer about what their problems are and what they want. Unfortunately, no one can do that. I wonder how Binay got that inference. LOL

by: VIENce Knowles

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

“Tumindig tayo at ipaglaban ang ating kalayaan. Tiwala ako na sa Lunes, iisa lang ang magiging hatol ng sambayanan. Isang gobyerno na pamumunuan ko na hindi manhid at palpak. Isang gobyerno na pamumunuan ko na kumikilala sa batas ng diyos. Isang pamunuan na maghihilom ng sugat ng mga away at pagtutunggali. Sino pa ba? Only Binay.”

MORAL HIGH-GROUND FALLACY.

~ This fallacy sure works in a country full of religious people. It’s just weird that this ‘government that recognizes God’s law’ is the same government in Makati who stole money from people.

by: VIENce Knowles

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

Let’s see if her way of arguing is any better...

“Alam niyo yung video na yun, mayroong tradisyon, ang ating Vice President, ang aming pamilya, na every year, yung mga namamasko, bumibisita sa bahay namin, binibigyan niya ng pamasko diba.” (Appeal to tradition)

~ Hindi porket ginagawa niyo yan yearly, ay majujustify na agad. The reason this video surfaced is because people like are skeptical about a few things: first, if this has any other motive; two, if those envelopes contain something else inside, campaign materials perhaps? You could’ve used an argument that would satisfy sketicism rather than something that would justify giving out money.

“Ako hindi na nagugulat, nalulungkot. Kasi yung mga small things that can make our people happy eh pilit nilang sinisira, piliti nilang ginigiba. Ako, kahit anong paninira ang gawin nila, basta ako’y nakakatulong at nakakaligaya sa ating mga kababayan, ipagpapatuloy ng pamilya namin yung ganung kalseng serbisyo.” (Appeal to pity, moral high-ground fallacy, appeal to emotion)

~ Eto nanaman tayo sa kayo ang inaapi, kayo ang pinagtutulungan, kayo ang may magandang intentions, ganern. What could’ve strengthened her argument for this issue is just cite verifiable or logical arguments to support her claim that the ideo is taken out of context.

A chip off the old block.

by: VIENce Knowles

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

In new ad, Binay says Duterte rule 'worse than martial law'

"Masahol pa sa Martial Law." This is how Vice President and United Nationalist Alliance standard bearer Jejomar Binay described the potential presidency of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte if the latter wins the election.

Faulty Analogy with Ad Hominem. (little dose of False Dilemma)

Duterte‘s rule cannot be equated nor even compared with Martial Law since this conclusion does not have a clear premise. The premises of Binay were all allegations. Ad Hominem because Binay keeps on attacking Duterte’s character. Binay also manifests false dilemma, and wants to share this dilemma to the viewers by threatening them about the possible face of a Duterte rule.

Huwag daw iboto si Duterte, why? “Kasi tuloy-tuloy ho ang pagyayabang.” lol

by Juan de la cruz na Ligas

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

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. 

by: VIENce Knowles

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

Caution: LSS

Only Binay (Talaga? Ikaw lang ang may kayang gumawa ng lahat?)

1. Hyperbole

Only Binay (HYPERBOLE)-being able to accomplish many things doesn’t mean that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE CAPABLE OF ACCOMPLISHING THEM.

2. Fallacy of Antecedent

“Sinong may nagawa na...sinong may magagawa pa” (You’re singing...hahaha)

FALLACY OF ANTECEDENT- There is no guarantee that the quality of the past performance will also be the quality of the future performance. (as if there was really a “quality performance”)

But yeah..”Only Binay”... can afford the costly production and TV airtime of this ad.

Copyright: Youtube and Binay Campaign Team

By Juan de la cruz na Ligas

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

Appeal to authority

~ So much hate when I watched this advertisement, maybe I just hatre him in general. But anyway, this strategy is commonly used by EVERY DAMN CANDIDATE. The appeal to authority uses a person of influence to strengthen one’s image or argument. Manny is a influential person (surprisingly even if he is the worst politician who ever stepped foot in Congress), this is because he has a reputation that some people look up to. 

I hate it that these kind of tactics are working. People should take Philo 1.

by: VIENce Knowles

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

Fallacy Overload

A series of Binay fallacies during the second presidential debates on TV 5. Although Grace Poe might have also committed logical fallacies in this video, our analysis focuses only on VP Binay.

00:11

Sweeping Generalization- Jojo Binay argues that Grace Poe is not a true Filipino since she took the Oath of Allegiance to America. This does not follow (non sequitir) since taking an oath of allegiance to other nations does not automatically mean that a person fully renounces or abjures his/her native country. There are other factors to consider (necessity for employment, marriage, custody of foreign children, etc.) Let us also not forget our economy’s stability dependence on foreign remittances.

00:54

Damning the Source-Jojo Binay argues that Poe cannot speak of the sentiments of OFWs in her argument in answering the issues about her American citizenship since she is not an OFW.

01:32

Ad Hominem- Jojo Binay attacks the person of Grace Poe by accusing her of being one with those staging a conspiracy against his presidential candidacy.

01:49

Red Herring- Jojo Binay keeps on (reiterating) diverting the issue to the “I abjure o ikinahihiya mo” issue on the Oath of Allegiance of Grace Poe instead of providing a counter rebuttal on her arguments.

02:24

Sweeping Generalization- Jojo Binay argues that Grace Poe is not a true Filipino since she took the Oath of Allegiance to America. This does not follow (non sequitir) since taking an oath of allegiance to other nations does not automatically mean that a person fully renounces or abjures his/her native country. There are other factors to consider (necessity for employment, marriage, custody of foreign children, etc.) Let us also not forget our economy’s stability dependence on foreign remittances.

03:12

Ad hominem- Jojo Binay accuses Grace Poe of accusing him of committing corruption, even though Grace’s statements are addressed generally.

Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. –William Shakespeare 

Copyright- Youtube, TV 5

By Juan de la cruz na Ligas

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

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. 

This should spawn a series: How to Get Away from Issues. Starring Jejomar Binay. by: VIENce Knowles

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

H or F - in *ired

Binay said

JEJOMAR BINAY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Under Jojo Binay, many will have jobs. Why? There will be a lot of foreign investors. They will provide employment in the sectors of agriculture, export, manufacturing, tourism, and BPO.

As for the time-being such statements can be considered a proof surrogate. If we carefully examine the structure of a vow or promise – we can consider

1.)It most probably is still not true as of the moment it is made

2.) There are probabilities it won’t be true – the more specific then the less probable it will be true

You may ask, SO WHAT if it is not true for the moment? It may become true soon enough right? Then we can say that the promise is made and we could not contest if that ever happens. For now, we can still doubt for the game is all about sweet lips with sweet words.

You may notice that his statement uses an appeal to self-interest. The target audience is obviously those who are jobless and those affected by contractualization.

Binay said again

JEJOMAR BINAY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The people of Makati love Jojo Binay. Why? Everything that Jojo Binay promised came true. That's why I'm telling you: the lives of every Filipino will improve. Jojo Binay will make that happen.

“Everything” is a big statement!  Are you sure you made it all come true?

With regards the sentence “The people of Makati love Jojo Binay” – are you sure?

Let’s translate this to standard form

Premise: Everything that Jojo Binay promised came true

Conclusion: Therefore the people of Makati love Jojo Binay

Wait, what promises are you telling anyway? Promise to whom? Which promises? Can you tell everything that Jojo Binay promised? Is the promise measurable by any means? The phrasing is vague but don’t be too concerned – it’s part of the game. Just observe :)

Another thing is just because Jojo Binays promises came true then the people of Makati will love Jojo Binay? Are you telling “all” the people of Makati? Do you mean absolutely everyone in Makati? Or are you only referring to the people who love you? How can you know that people love you? Is there anybody in Makati that does not love you? What is love anyway? How can you measure the love of Makati people? Is there a certain personal threshold that tells you that a Makati person loves you or not. Again, sorry for being overanalytic but this language tricks are common and politicians love this so much they will do anything to appeal to your self-interests and desires or whatever assurances you want as a voter or person.

If we look at another reason such was said - psychologically, we want those people who are trusted and actually holds their promises, right? And on the contrary, we do not want those who break promises and lies.

The article writer said

“Eight days before the elections, Binay vows that only he can address these problems.”  

Proof surrogate. Why? Is he actually the only one who can address these problems?  

Appeal to the people/self-interest. Why? With the people’s needs to have a job or stability in one, it can actually work because who doesn’t want someone who can fix their problems other than themselves? I mean it would be easier , right?

The logic here is “If Binay is the only one who can fix the broken light bulb then we will hire Binay.” but there are more factors to consider such as “Is Binay the only one who can actually fix the light bulb and, is he simply telling that so he will be hired?”

  .rv.

  Sources: http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/131494-labor-day-binay-12-million-jobs-2022

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

Are Committing Fallacies Bad?

We have been examining a lot of Binay campaign and his usage of fallacies and rhetorical devices but have we actually questioned whether committing such (mainly fallacies) is a sin (by definition a moral offense – offense that we would normally not like to be committed to us)? In an idealistic world, we can tell that these fallacies are sins and an act of fraud but in the real world such is considered to be naturally occurring especially to politicians (and the people too).

Let us consider these factors for answering the question. First, it is our nature that humans are all fallible, but it does not excuse us from making future better logical decisions and corrections. Second, not all realize that they are committing such devices and fallacies in their everyday dealings with life. You may tell to a certain person that they are committing such erroneous way of reasoning but they may discard that because they believe that what they are telling is not wrong in any way – having no ideas about the nature of these fallacies. Third, we are not completely logical beings – we also have an emotional side. The problem with this is when emotions conquer and imbalance the left-right brain equation of logic and emotions. Fourth, we all have different circumstances and experiences, we are all raised in different belief systems, educated in different ways and it is the fact that some people will barely escape such systems they were subjected to in life. For example, a person who whole-heartedly believe that such is true will be hard to persuade in another belief or hard to shatter their crystallized current belief system even if the foundations of their thinking is not based on standards of truth.

If you know the definition of Rhetorics – it is the art of using language as means to persuade.  To note again, people do not entirely function logically even in their sober minds – sometimes emotions which cloud their thinking arise which makes them fall to faulty reasoning or subpar decisions. This is why politicians take advantage of this fact in human psychology. While fallacies root from the word fallere which means “deceive” – so while the people may think such is true or correct – it can prove otherwise that such reasoning does not meet its face value.

So to go back to the question- is it a sin? For the truth seekers, yes it is – though in accident (and sadly we will not actually know if it is accidentally committed or not) and acceptable behavior can be forgiven. But to the people – it can be swept off easily and be left unnoticed which means the sin was committed yet it is not acknowledged. To end this, remember what the goal of running politicians is. They think of how they can persuade you to trust them and vote for them. Fallacies and rhetorical devices are merely a tool for them to get to their destination. If truth is not working, then there must be something to be added in the equation so they can stand out among others and get your sweet yes and the sweet seat. If it is actually a legitimate sin (or crime in this context) then we can assume that a lot of politicians will be convicted. It may be a sin, but it is an accepted sin or we can say it is just not regarded as one. Well, fallacies are used all the time so it must not be wrong, right?

ps: did you notice the fallacy?

.rv.

[aristurtlesphilo1-blog]

FARD Examiner

This is an early article I had written last April 16 2016 examining the different fallacies and rhetorics used by Binay.

Before you begin reading this article , I want you to put this question in your mind: What is FARD?

You’ll know later.

SOURCE: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/779752/binay-urges-duterte-to-reveal-secret-illness

 “Basta’t ako ang naririnig ko, ‘yan ay maya’t-maya lumuluwas sa Maynila at nagpapagamot.Kaya laging nasa Maynila ‘yan,” Binay said.

Binay urged Duterte to issue a medical certificate to dispel rumors surrounding his health. Duterte had been rumored to be undergoing dialysis, which he had denied.

  A (Analysis): Headlines recently these April 16 (time this was written) is flooded with Binay and Duterte exchanges but to be on our main focus Binay (since he is our blog topic)… Let’s ask, Is Binay TOO DESPERATE to resort to Red Herring/Ad Hominem (used in the statement) such as creating secret illnesses to derail from the actual arguments that matter? Also, he was using a Proof Surrogate “naririnig ko” which means there was no proof all along. It’s all hearsay.

 Though if you noticed, he seems brave to attack others, but when he himself is attacked back/challenged – he either tries to avoid the argument or backs out silently (Appeal to ignorance, appeal to silence , appeal to absence of evidence , red herring) in spite of fronting that he accepted the challenge. But don’t worry; it’s all based on political strategies because this is a political game. Binay knows the game too well and has a handful of tricks in his pocket and he knows that some will not be able to see through the veil of his techniques and also acknowledge the fact that a wrong move can cost his chances of winning.

 SOURCE: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/779824/binay-tells-islamic-leaders-no-peace-for-mindanao-under-duterte-presidency

 “We Muslims and Christians have the moral responsibility not to vote for Duterte,”

A: Binay used a stereotype for Christians and Muslims. The reason given for not voting Duterte was an Appeal to Belief/Values – why? Because as Christians and Muslims, they would want to do what they believe is abiding to their moral standards which is where Binay is appealing to.  The statement is also an innuendo that Duterte is an immoral person.

  “Paano po kami tumulong, sa abot ng aming makakaya. Hindi katulad ng iba, nagmamaang-maangan, nagsisinungaling, na wala naman talagang ginagawa. Ito ay pagpapakita lamang ng kakulangan sa tamang pamamahala. Maari siguro may karanasan pero competence? Zero, if I may say so,”

 A: Binay used Ad Hominem (abusive) and a Proof surrogate (with regards to competence , giving an absolute value) – against his opponents.

 SOURCE: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/777042/binay-describes-roxas-comics-shameful

With Regards to Yolanda: Binay vowed that under his presidency, he would manage a crisis and not repeat the same mistake of slow government response during a major calamity.

“Ilang taon na. Sa akin pong pangangasiwa, when I become President I assure you, I will handle, I will manage any cause of calamity or any cost of crisis. Why? Because I am a decisive leader,” Binay said.

A: He uses appeal to values and appeal to peoples self interest (of having a decisive leader) and appeal to self authority since all his claims are self-proclaimed. Or maybe he is just confident?

 SOURCE: http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/129227-binay-attack-mode-hits-duterte-poe-roxas

  JEJOMAR BINAY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There’s a candidate saying she has experience. Yes, experience of living in America.

 A: Innuendo. Why? Because it is given that this is an “if you know what I mean statement” and a Downplayer . Adding “living in America” downplays the statement that the fact a president needs (or would be favourable having) an experience although in this case the added “living in America” experience is not relevant in the upcoming elections so “the experience” is somehow intended to be an attack. Politics ;). Sarcasm is also detected. How? We associate having experience as a political candidate to be good but here it seems to be the opposite. We all know who Binay’s talking about.

 "Si Duterte sa kayabangan, pinagmamalaki na 'Lulutasin ko ang kriminalidad.' Sa paanong paraan? Papatayin (niya) ang lahat ng mahihirap at kanyang pinagsususpetsahang nagkamali at di sumusunod sa batas." he said.

For Binay, doing so under a democracy would be "inhuman", "ungodly" and a "violation of human rights."

A: Proof Surrogate detected. He made assumptions that all poor people and those who are thought to have violated the law will be killed. Did it happen? It is still an assumption for now unless it’s proven or it actually happens/happened.

Ad Hominem is also detected. Why? If you analyze it, the statement is actually a personal attack to a person’s character. Instead of telling why we should vote for him (argument) – we get why we should not vote for others as to why we should vote for him. To rephrase “We should vote for Binay because we should not vote his opponents”. There also lies the appeal to fear – particularly fear of death and it also appeals to human value using words such as “inhuman” , “ungodly” and “violation of human rights”.

"Isang cheap gimmick ang hamon mong debate. Ipinapakita lamang nito na wala ka nang maisip na isagot dahil totoo ang sinasabi ko: ikaw ay pumapatay ng mahihirap, hindi ng mayayaman. Ikaw ay pumapatay ng walang pakundangan, hindi ka kumikilala ng batas ng tao at batas ng Diyos,"

A: Technically, another Ad Hominem. He is derailing from the focus- attacking the person rather than the argument. Also again , appeal to values and appeal to fear.

SOURCE:http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/129099-jejomar-binay-rodrigo-duterte-executioner

JEJOMAR BINAY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There are people who are amazed when he says, "I will kill him! I will cut off his head!" Why? Your admiration should not translate into votes. When you vote, vote for someone whom you can be proud of as president. It's the responsibility of every Filipino not to vote for Duterte.

A: Ad Hominem plus Innuendo – He implicitly states that he can be a president that Filipinos can be proud off telling Filipinos to vote for him. He also uses appeal to force by fear due to the fact that if they voted Duterte then we can conclude that such people will be killed.

 Disclaimer: We are not for or against Binay. We are only objectively determining fallacies and rhetorics used in his campaign . All that will be covered in this article is for entertainment and educational use only, demonstrating that politicians are also prone/inclined/unaware or aware to making use of such fallacies and rhetorical devices which an ordinary person may not know of/take notice.

Footnote: If you are wondering what FARD means , it means Fallacies and Rhetorical Devices.

.rv.