Rhetorical Analysis – The Modes of Persuasion

Argue on who wins the argument between Tucker Carlson and Dr. Ahmadu on the topic of FGC using the Modes of Persuasion. Usage of at least two logical fallacies is necessary. Write under the pretense that Dr. Ahmadu (she’s in favor of FGC) wins the argument

Interview below

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/6jo_K6W7tOpkuFG19Hm2LKS-fRGik2nelnwuQ5TWY9SvJQpLRAz-6sBGRwzT0zsW4SdfNN_EtQyNXpz_iPWssV5kqgQ?loadFrom=DocumentHeaderDeepLink

if that doesn’t work here

Guide on Paragraphs below

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vTqEwx7Dv9UnbD3ErihQewqz9tZXvNWnnu-TcptT-63uZrh9_VAPLrtha5UoyNaXO9FPcxQCKMfqmwH/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.g720ed67a9d_2_0https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vTqEwx7Dv9UnbD3ErihQewqz9tZXvNWnnu-TcptT-63uZrh9_VAPLrtha5UoyNaXO9FPcxQCKMfqmwH/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.g720ed67a9d_2_0

scoresheet below

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TdfMIyL3DyrChC-DGEoGHgn8KgDK8mV0bNzwfOfIIs0/edit?usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1TdfMIyL3DyrChC-DGEoGHgn8KgDK8mV0bNzwfOfIIs0/edit?usp=sharing

Logical Fallacy I used for a discussion post, can use parts in essay as well as for reference of writing style

One logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the double standard fallacy. The double standard fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone applies different standards or criteria to different situations, people, or groups, without any justified reason for the difference in treatment. This is often used to create an unfair advantage or disadvantage for a particular side of an argument, by setting up an inconsistent standard for evaluating evidence or arguments. Carlson lost the argument as he incorporated elements of the double standard fallacy. When the topic of male circumcision came up, Carlson would state how male circumcision was different from FGC, and how there was scientific research proving that male circumcision was okay and FGC isn’t, while also not providing any solid evidence as to why male circumcision is ok but FGC isn’t. Ahmadu states “There are a lot of men, right? Who have experienced circumcision who say that this is mutilation.” Carlson states there’s research that provides ‘profound medical advantages’ to male circumcision, but there is no research that shows there are advantages to female genital mutilation. As Dr. Ahmadu states, Carlson believes it is acceptable to perform an invasive procedure on boys, but not girls, implying that it’s abusing girls. This is an example of the double standard fallacy as it provides a different set of standards for girls and boys.One logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the double standard fallacy. The double standard fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone applies different standards or criteria to different situations, people, or groups, without any justified reason for the difference in treatment. This is often used to create an unfair advantage or disadvantage for a particular side of an argument, by setting up an inconsistent standard for evaluating evidence or arguments. Carlson lost the argument as he incorporated elements of the double standard fallacy. When the topic of male circumcision came up, Carlson would state how male circumcision was different from FGC, and how there was scientific research proving that male circumcision was okay and FGC isn’t, while also not providing any solid evidence as to why male circumcision is ok but FGC isn’t. Ahmadu states “There are a lot of men, right? Who have experienced circumcision who say that this is mutilation.” Carlson states there’s research that provides ‘profound medical advantages’ to male circumcision, but there is no research that shows there are advantages to female genital mutilation. As Dr. Ahmadu states, Carlson believes it is acceptable to perform an invasive procedure on boys, but not girls, implying that it’s abusing girls. This is an example of the double standard fallacy as it provides a different set of standards for girls and boys.One logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the double standard fallacy. The double standard fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone applies different standards or criteria to different situations, people, or groups, without any justified reason for the difference in treatment. This is often used to create an unfair advantage or disadvantage for a particular side of an argument, by setting up an inconsistent standard for evaluating evidence or arguments. Carlson lost the argument as he incorporated elements of the double standard fallacy. When the topic of male circumcision came up, Carlson would state how male circumcision was different from FGC, and how there was scientific research proving that male circumcision was okay and FGC isn’t, while also not providing any solid evidence as to why male circumcision is ok but FGC isn’t. Ahmadu states “There are a lot of men, right? Who have experienced circumcision who say that this is mutilation.” Carlson states there’s research that provides ‘profound medical advantages’ to male circumcision, but there is no research that shows there are advantages to female genital mutilation. As Dr. Ahmadu states, Carlson believes it is acceptable to perform an invasive procedure on boys, but not girls, implying that it’s abusing girls. This is an example of the double standard fallacy as it provides a different set of standards for girls and boys.One logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the double standard fallacy. The double standard fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone applies different standards or criteria to different situations, people, or groups, without any justified reason for the difference in treatment. This is often used to create an unfair advantage or disadvantage for a particular side of an argument, by setting up an inconsistent standard for evaluating evidence or arguments. Carlson lost the argument as he incorporated elements of the double standard fallacy. When the topic of male circumcision came up, Carlson would state how male circumcision was different from FGC, and how there was scientific research proving that male circumcision was okay and FGC isn’t, while also not providing any solid evidence as to why male circumcision is ok but FGC isn’t. Ahmadu states “There are a lot of men, right? Who have experienced circumcision who say that this is mutilation.” Carlson states there’s research that provides ‘profound medical advantages’ to male circumcision, but there is no research that shows there are advantages to female genital mutilation. As Dr. Ahmadu states, Carlson believes it is acceptable to perform an invasive procedure on boys, but not girls, implying that it’s abusing girls. This is an example of the double standard fallacy as it provides a different set of standards for girls and boys.

Second Logical Fallacy I used
The second logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the faulty emotional appeal logical fallacy. The faulty emotional appeal fallacy is when someone tries to persuade an audience by using emotions instead of logical reasoning. It’s considered as the opposite of a strong usage of Pathos. Carlson’s usage of faulty emotional appeal helped aid in his loss in the debate between him and Dr. Ahamadu in their argument on FGC. Carlson states “I think it’s so horrifying… that something like this is perpetrated on young girls.” Over the course of the argument he consistently uses this argument, while providing no real evidence behind these words. It was evident he had no real evidence to back up his thoughts, he had no sources or research to support his statements, and instead was trying to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotional sense of empathy and sympathy. This is shown in his vocabulary usage, instead of using facts and research to support his views and arguments, he relied on how “horrifying” he thought FGC was. Not to mention how at the start of their debate, Dr. Ahamdu had to correct Carlson, who mistook ‘female genital circumcision for ‘female genital mutilation,’ which Dr. Ahamdu does not support. Even after being corrected, Carlson still refers to FGC as FGM. Carlson fails to incorporate pathos into his argument, instead using faulty emotional appeal as his arguments were not strong and held no ground.The second logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the faulty emotional appeal logical fallacy. The faulty emotional appeal fallacy is when someone tries to persuade an audience by using emotions instead of logical reasoning. It’s considered as the opposite of a strong usage of Pathos. Carlson’s usage of faulty emotional appeal helped aid in his loss in the debate between him and Dr. Ahamadu in their argument on FGC. Carlson states “I think it’s so horrifying… that something like this is perpetrated on young girls.” Over the course of the argument he consistently uses this argument, while providing no real evidence behind these words. It was evident he had no real evidence to back up his thoughts, he had no sources or research to support his statements, and instead was trying to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotional sense of empathy and sympathy. This is shown in his vocabulary usage, instead of using facts and research to support his views and arguments, he relied on how “horrifying” he thought FGC was. Not to mention how at the start of their debate, Dr. Ahamdu had to correct Carlson, who mistook ‘female genital circumcision for ‘female genital mutilation,’ which Dr. Ahamdu does not support. Even after being corrected, Carlson still refers to FGC as FGM. Carlson fails to incorporate pathos into his argument, instead using faulty emotional appeal as his arguments were not strong and held no ground.The second logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the faulty emotional appeal logical fallacy. The faulty emotional appeal fallacy is when someone tries to persuade an audience by using emotions instead of logical reasoning. It’s considered as the opposite of a strong usage of Pathos. Carlson’s usage of faulty emotional appeal helped aid in his loss in the debate between him and Dr. Ahamadu in their argument on FGC. Carlson states “I think it’s so horrifying… that something like this is perpetrated on young girls.” Over the course of the argument he consistently uses this argument, while providing no real evidence behind these words. It was evident he had no real evidence to back up his thoughts, he had no sources or research to support his statements, and instead was trying to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotional sense of empathy and sympathy. This is shown in his vocabulary usage, instead of using facts and research to support his views and arguments, he relied on how “horrifying” he thought FGC was. Not to mention how at the start of their debate, Dr. Ahamdu had to correct Carlson, who mistook ‘female genital circumcision for ‘female genital mutilation,’ which Dr. Ahamdu does not support. Even after being corrected, Carlson still refers to FGC as FGM. Carlson fails to incorporate pathos into his argument, instead using faulty emotional appeal as his arguments were not strong and held no ground.The second logical fallacy I will be incorporating into my essay is the faulty emotional appeal logical fallacy. The faulty emotional appeal fallacy is when someone tries to persuade an audience by using emotions instead of logical reasoning. It’s considered as the opposite of a strong usage of Pathos. Carlson’s usage of faulty emotional appeal helped aid in his loss in the debate between him and Dr. Ahamadu in their argument on FGC. Carlson states “I think it’s so horrifying… that something like this is perpetrated on young girls.” Over the course of the argument he consistently uses this argument, while providing no real evidence behind these words. It was evident he had no real evidence to back up his thoughts, he had no sources or research to support his statements, and instead was trying to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotional sense of empathy and sympathy. This is shown in his vocabulary usage, instead of using facts and research to support his views and arguments, he relied on how “horrifying” he thought FGC was. Not to mention how at the start of their debate, Dr. Ahamdu had to correct Carlson, who mistook ‘female genital circumcision for ‘female genital mutilation,’ which Dr. Ahamdu does not support. Even after being corrected, Carlson still refers to FGC as FGM. Carlson fails to incorporate pathos into his argument, instead using faulty emotional appeal as his arguments were not strong and held no ground.

If any other information is necessary I can provide

Last Completed Projects