DAVID MUIR: Tonight, the high-stakes showdown here in Philadelphia between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. Their first face-to-face meeting in this presidential election. Their first face-to-face meeting ever. 

LINSEY DAVIS: A historic race for president upended just weeks ago. President Biden withdrawing after his last debate. Donald Trump is now up against a new opponent. 

DAVID MUIR: The candidates separated by the smallest of margins. Essentially tied in the polls nationally. And in the key battlegrounds, including right here in Pennsylvania, all still very much in play. The ABC News Presidential Debate starts right now. 

DAVID MUIR: Good evening, I’m David Muir. And thank you for joining us for tonight’s ABC News Presidential Debate. We want to welcome viewers watching on ABC and around the world tonight. Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump are just moments away from taking the stage in this unprecedented race for president. 

LINSEY DAVIS: And I’m Linsey Davis. Tonight’s meeting could be the most consequential event of their campaigns, with Election Day now less than two months away. For Vice President Kamala Harris, this is her first debate since President Biden withdrew from the race on July 21st. Of course, that decision followed his debate against President Donald Trump in June. Since then, this race has taken on an entirely new dynamic. 

DAVID MUIR: And that brings us to the rules of tonight’s debate: 90 minutes with two commercial breaks. No topics or questions have been shared with the campaigns. The candidates will have two minutes to answer questions. And this is the clock. That’s what they’ll be seeing. Two minutes for rebuttals and one minute for follow-ups, clarifications or responses. Their microphones will only be turned on when it’s their turn to speak. No prewritten notes allowed. There is no audience here tonight in this hall at the National Constitution Center. This is an intimate setting for two candidates who have never met. 

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump won the coin toss. He chose to deliver the final closing statement of the evening. Vice President Harris selected the podium to the right. 

DAVID MUIR: So let’s now welcome the candidates to the stage. Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump. 

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Kamala Harris. Let’s have a good debate. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Nice to see you. Have fun. 

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Thank you. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Thank you. 

DAVID MUIR: Welcome to you both. It’s wonderful to have you. It’s an honor to have you both here tonight. 

LINSEY DAVIS: Good evening. We are looking forward to a spirited and thoughtful debate. 

DAVID MUIR: So let’s get started. I want to begin tonight with the issue voters repeatedly say is their number one issue, and that is the economy and the cost of living in this country. Vice President Harris, you and President Trump were elected four years ago and your opponent on the stage here tonight often asks his supporters, are you better off than you were four years ago? When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago? 

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So, I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people. And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy. Because here’s the thing. We know that we have a shortage of homes and housing, and the cost of housing is too expensive for far too many people. We know that young families need support to raise their children. And I intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time. So that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children. My passion, one of them, is small businesses. I was actually — my mother raised my sister and me but there was a woman who helped raise us. We call her our second mother. She was a small business owner. I love our small businesses. My plan is to give a $50,000 tax deduction to start-up small businesses, knowing they are part of the backbone of America’s economy. My opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, which will result in $5 trillion to America’s deficit. My opponent has a plan that I call the Trump sales tax, which would be a 20% tax on everyday goods that you rely on to get through the month. Economists have said that Trump’s sales tax would actually result for middle-class families in about $4,000 more a year because of his policies and his ideas about what should be the backs of middle-class people paying for tax cuts for billionaires.

1. Appeal to Emotion: Harris emphasizes her middle-class upbringing and personal connection to small businesses ("I was raised as a middle-class kid," "my second mother was a small business owner"). While these are personal experiences, they appeal to emotions rather than providing direct evidence that her policies will benefit the economy.
2. False Dichotomy: Harris presents a dichotomy between her plan to help the middle class and her opponent’s plan to cut taxes for billionaires. While these might be general policy differences, the framing ignores the possibility of other approaches or policy nuances that could exist outside these two extremes.
3. Strawman Fallacy: Harris claims that Trump’s plan will impose a “20% sales tax on everyday goods,” a policy she refers to as the “Trump sales tax.” Trump immediately denies this claim, stating that he has no such plan. If Harris is misrepresenting Trump’s policies in a way that makes them easier to attack, this would be a strawman.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, I’ll give you two minutes. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First of all, I have no sales tax. That’s an incorrect statement. She knows that. We’re doing tariffs on other countries. Other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we’ve done for the world. And the tariff will be substantial in some cases. I took in billions and billions of dollars, as you know, from China. In fact, they never took the tariff off because it was so much money, they can’t. It would totally destroy everything that they’ve set out to do. They’ve taken in billions of dollars from China and other places. They’ve left the tariffs on. When I had it, I had tariffs and yet I had no inflation. Look, we’ve had a terrible economy because inflation has — which is really known as a country buster. It breaks up countries. We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history. We were at 21%. But that’s being generous because many things are 50, 60, 70, and 80% higher than they were just a few years ago. This has been a disaster for people, for the middle class, but for every class. On top of that, we have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. And they’re coming in and they’re taking jobs that are occupied right now by African Americans and Hispanics and also unions. Unions are going to be affected very soon. And you see what’s happening. You see what’s happening with towns throughout the United States. You look at Springfield, Ohio. You look at Aurora in Colorado. They are taking over the towns. They’re taking over buildings. They’re going in violently. These are the people that she and Biden let into our country. And they’re destroying our country. They’re dangerous. They’re at the highest level of criminality. And we have to get them out. We have to get them out fast. I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country. I’ll do it again and even better. 

1. Strawman Fallacy: Trump responds to Harris’ claim about the "sales tax" by saying, “I have no sales tax." He shifts the conversation to tariffs, a different issue, and accuses Harris of knowingly making an incorrect statement. By framing her argument as a deliberate lie, he potentially misrepresents the intent of her claim.
2. Hasty Generalization: Trump makes broad claims about the nature of inflation under Harris and Biden, stating that “we have inflation like very few people have ever seen before” and “probably the worst in our nation’s history.” While inflation is a serious issue, these claims are exaggerated and don’t account for historical context or data. This overgeneralization doesn’t take into account inflation trends over longer periods or in different economic contexts.
3. Scare Tactics / Appeal to Fear: Trump describes an influx of people “from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums,” suggesting that these immigrants are dangerous criminals taking over towns. This is an appeal to fear, where he paints an extreme and alarming picture of immigration to stir fear in the audience rather than addressing the complexity of immigration policies.
4. False Cause Fallacy: Trump attributes inflation and economic problems to Harris and Biden's immigration policies ("They’re coming in and they’re taking jobs... they’re destroying our country"). While immigration may have economic implications, Trump provides no evidence to show that immigration directly caused inflation or the specific problems he mentions.
5. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Harris by associating her with dangerous people ("These are the people that she and Biden let into our country"). Rather than addressing her economic policies or providing evidence for his claims, he attacks her character by implying that she is responsible for bringing in dangerous criminals.
6. Overgeneralization / Stereotyping: Trump's statement that immigrants from prisons, mental institutions, and asylums are pouring into the country and taking over towns is an overgeneralization. He lumps all immigrants together as criminals, without providing evidence to support such a sweeping claim.

DAVID MUIR: We are going to get to immigration and border security during this debate. But I would like to let Vice President Harris respond on the economy here.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I would love to. Let’s talk about what Donald Trump left us. Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century. Donald Trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War. And what we have done is clean up Donald Trump’s mess. What we have done and what I intend to do is build on what we know are the aspirations and the hopes of the American people. But I’m going to tell you all, in this debate tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old, tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling. What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again. I believe very strongly that the American people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us. And I pledge to you to be a president for all Americans.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris focuses on blaming Trump personally for the “worst unemployment since the Great Depression,” “the worst public health epidemic,” and “the worst attack on democracy,” attributing complex events solely to him. This type of personal attack diverts from discussing policies and oversimplifies the causes of these crises.
2. False Cause Fallacy: Harris implies that Trump is directly responsible for these events, ignoring other significant factors like the global COVID-19 pandemic, economic fluctuations, or other societal contributors. This fallacy occurs when a cause-and-effect relationship is assumed without sufficient evidence to support that conclusion.
3. Strawman Fallacy: Harris claims Trump will present a "detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025," even though Trump later denies any involvement. If Harris is misrepresenting Trump's policies to make them easier to attack, it would be a classic strawman.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, I’ll give you a minute here to respond.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Number one, I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That’s out there. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it, purposely. I’m not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad. But it makes no difference. I have nothing to do — everybody knows I’m an open book. Everybody knows what I’m going to do. Cut taxes very substantially. And create a great economy like I did before. We had the greatest economy. We got hit with a pandemic. And the pandemic was, not since 1917 where 100 million people died has there been anything like it? We did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. We handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. We made ventilators for the entire world. We got gowns. We got masks. We did things that nobody thought possible. And people give me credit for rebuilding the military. They give me credit for a lot of things. But not enough credit for the great job we did with the pandemic. But the only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs. These were jobs, bounce back. And it bounced back and it went to their benefit. But I was the one that created them. They know it and so does everybody else.

1. Strawman Fallacy: Trump denies involvement in Project 2025 and dismisses it by stating he hasn’t read it and doesn’t intend to. By distancing himself from it without addressing its content, he creates an easy-to-dismiss version of Harris's claim rather than engaging with the actual substance of her accusation.
2. Appeal to Emotion: Trump's reference to the 1917 pandemic and his claims that his administration performed “phenomenally” during COVID-19 rely heavily on emotional language and anecdotal evidence. He provides little substantive data to support these claims, instead appealing to how people feel about the crisis response.
3. Hasty Generalization: Trump generalizes his success with the economy by claiming that "nobody's ever seen anything like it," without providing concrete data or addressing the nuances of economic recovery. He credits his administration with all the positive outcomes, ignoring external factors like global economic conditions.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, I’ll let you respond.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So, Donald Trump has no plan for you. And when you look at his economic plan, it’s all about tax breaks for the richest people. I am offering what I describe as an opportunity economy, and the best economists in our country, if not the world, have reviewed our relative plans for the future of America. What Goldman Sachs has said is that Donald Trump’s plan would make the economy worse. Mine would strengthen the economy. What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump’s plan would actually explode the deficit. Sixteen Nobel laureates have described his economic plan as something that would increase inflation and by the middle of next year would invite a recession. You just have to look at where we are and where we stand on the issues. And I’d invite you to know that Donald Trump actually has no plan for you, because he is more interested in defending himself than he is in looking out for you.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris claims Trump “has no plan for you” and is only interested in defending himself, attacking his character rather than focusing purely on policy. This is a form of personal attack rather than addressing the content of Trump’s actual plans.
2. Appeal to Authority: Harris cites Goldman Sachs, the Wharton School, and Nobel laureates to support her economic plan and dismiss Trump’s. While expert opinion can be valuable, relying solely on these names without providing specific arguments or evidence is an appeal to authority. The fallacy occurs when one assumes that these institutions' opinions are correct without explaining their reasoning.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That’s just a sound bite. They gave her that to say. Look, I went to the Wharton School of Finance and many of those professors, the top professors, think my plan is a brilliant plan, it’s a great plan. It’s a plan that’s going to bring up our worth, our value as a country. It’s going to make people want to be able to go and work and create jobs and create a lot of good, solid money for our — for our country. And just to finish off, she doesn’t have a plan. She copied Biden’s plan. And it’s like four sentences, like run-Spot-run. Four sentences that are just oh, we’ll try and lower taxes. She doesn’t have a plan. Take a look at her plan. She doesn’t have a plan.

1. Ad Hominem: Trump dismisses Harris’s arguments as “just a sound bite” and accuses her of being handed talking points, rather than engaging with her arguments. He criticizes her character by implying she’s merely reciting scripted lines, without addressing the merits of her economic proposals.
2. Appeal to Authority: Trump cites his own connection to the Wharton School and claims that its “top professors” think his plan is brilliant. This is another form of appeal to authority, where he tries to boost his credibility based on his educational background rather than providing data or specific arguments.

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I do want to drill down on something you both brought up. The vice president brought up your tariffs you responded and let’s drill down on this because your plan is what she calls is a essentially a national sales tax. Your proposal calls for tariffs as you pointed out here, on foreign imports across the board. You recently said that you might double your plan, imposing tariffs up to 20% on good coming into this country. As you know many economists say that with tariffs at that level costs are then passed onto the consumer. Vice President Harris has argued it’ll mean higher prices on gas, food, clothing medication arguing it costs the typical family nearly four thousand dollars a year. Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They aren’t gonna have higher prices what’s gonna have and who’s gonna have higher prices is China and all of the countries that have been ripping us off for years. I charge, I was the only president ever China was paying us hundreds of billions of dollars and so were other countries and you know if she doesn’t like ‘em they should have gone out and they should have immediately cut the tariffs but those tariffs are there three and a half years now under their administration. We are gonna take in billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars. I had no inflation, virtually no inflation, they had the highest inflation, perhaps in the history of our country because I’ve never seen a worse period of time. People can’t go out and buy cereal bacon or eggs or anything else. These the people of our country are absolutely dying with what they’ve done. They’ve destroyed the economy and all you have to do it look at a poll. The polls say 80 and 85 and even 90% that the Trump economy was great that their economy was terrible.

1. False Cause Fallacy: Trump claims that tariffs on foreign imports will not result in higher prices for American consumers, insisting that only China and other countries will bear the cost. However, economists generally agree that tariffs often lead to higher prices for consumers due to companies passing on the increased costs. This oversimplified claim of cause and effect is unsupported by evidence.
2. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy): Trump asserts that polls show 80–90% of people believe his economy was great and that the current economy is terrible. This is an appeal to popularity—just because many people believe something doesn’t necessarily make it true. Economic health should be assessed using objective data, not public opinion.
3. Scapegoating (Appeal to Blame): By attributing inflation and economic issues solely to the current administration while absolving his own policies, Trump shifts blame without considering the complexity of global economic trends or the pandemic’s lingering effects. This attempt to shift blame oversimplifies the issue.
4. Hasty Generalization: Trump claims that "people are absolutely dying with what they’ve done." While inflation and economic hardship may exist, this dramatic overstatement generalizes the experience of the entire population without evidence or acknowledgment of varied economic outcomes.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris I do want to ask for your response and you heard what the president said there because the Biden administration did keep a number of the Trump tariffs in place so how do you respond?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, let’s be clear that the Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit, one of the highest we’ve ever seen in the history of America. He invited trade wars, you wanna talk about his deal with China what he ended up doing is under Donald Trump’s presidency he ended up selling American chips to China to help them improve and modernize their military basically sold us out when a policy about China should be in making sure the United States of America wins the competition for the 21st century. Which means focusing on the details of what that requires, focusing on relationships with our allies, focusing on investing in American based technology so that we win the race on A.I. and quantum computing, focusing on what we need to do to support America’s work force, so that we don’t end up having the on the short end of the stick in terms of workers’ rights. But what Donald Trump did let’s talk about this with COVID, is he actually thanked President XI for what he did during COVID. Look at his tweet. “Thank you, President XI,” exclamation point. When we know that XI was responsible for lacking and not giving us transparency about the origins of COVID.

1. Strawman Fallacy: Harris claims that Trump “sold us out” by selling American chips to China, implying that this directly helped China modernize its military. This is a distortion of Trump’s trade policies and overlooks the complexity of trade relations. The claim simplifies the issue and misrepresents Trump’s role in broader technological developments.
2. Guilt by Association: Harris highlights Trump’s tweet thanking President Xi during COVID, attempting to associate Trump with Xi’s perceived lack of transparency about the pandemic’s origins. While the tweet is real, using it to imply that Trump supports or is complicit in China’s mishandling of the virus is a classic guilt by association fallacy.
3. Ad Hominem: By framing Trump’s actions in an emotionally charged way (“he basically sold us out”), Harris attacks his character and motives rather than directly addressing his policies or their outcomes. This shifts the focus from the policy details to a personal attack.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, I’ll let you respond.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First of all, they bought their chips from Taiwan. We hardly make chips anymore because of philosophies like they have and policies like they have. I don’t say her because she has no policy. Everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window. She’s going to my philosophy now. In fact, I was going to send her a MAGA hat. She’s gone to my philosophy. But if she ever got elected, she’d change it. And it will be the end of our country. She’s a Marxist. Everybody knows she’s a Marxist. Her father’s a Marxist professor in economics. And he taught her well. But when you look at what she’s done to our country and when you look at these millions and millions of people that are pouring into our country monthly where it’s I believe 21 million people, not the 15 that people say, and I think it’s a lot higher than the 21. That’s bigger than New York state. Pouring in. And just look at what they’re doing to our country. They’re criminals. Many of these people coming in are criminals. And that’s bad for our economy too. You mentioned before, we’ll talk about immigration later. Well, bad immigration is the worst thing that can happen to our economy. They have and she has destroyed our country with policy that’s insane. Almost policy that you’d say they have to hate our country.

1. Red Herring: Trump shifts the conversation away from the discussion of trade and chips to focus on Harris’s supposed alignment with his own policies, her father's Marxism, and immigration issues. This deflection away from the original topic serves as a red herring, distracting from the central argument.
2. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Harris by labeling her a "Marxist" and criticizing her father’s political beliefs, associating them with her policies. This personal attack does not address her actual stance or proposals but seeks to discredit her through guilt by association and personal insult.
3. Slippery Slope Fallacy: Trump claims that if Harris were elected, “it would be the end of our country,” suggesting that her policies would lead to catastrophic outcomes without explaining how this extreme conclusion is justified. This is a slippery slope fallacy, where one action is assumed to inevitably lead to disastrous results.
4. Hasty Generalization: Trump generalizes that “many of these people coming in are criminals” when talking about immigrants. This claim is not substantiated with data and unfairly stereotypes a large group of people based on limited evidence.
5. Appeal to Fear: Trump invokes fear by painting a dire picture of millions of immigrants entering the country and claiming they are criminals. This appeal to fear is intended to provoke an emotional reaction rather than present a rational argument.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. Linsey?

LINSEY DAVIS: I want to turn to the issue of abortion. President Trump, you’ve often touted that you were able to kill Roe V. Wade. Last year, you said that you were proud to be the most pro-life president in American history. Then last month you said that your administration would be great for women and their reproductive rights. In your home state of Florida, you surprised many with regard to your six-week abortion ban because you initially had said that it was too short and you said, “I’m going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.” But then the very next day, you reversed course and said you would vote to support the six-week ban. Vice President Harris says that women shouldn’t trust you on the issue of abortion because you’ve changed your position so many times. Therefore, why should they trust you?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, the reason I’m doing that vote is because the plan is, as you know, the vote is, they have abortion in the ninth month. They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, who’s doing an excellent job, but the governor before. He said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we’ll execute the baby.

And that’s why I did that, because that predominates. Because they’re radical. The Democrats are radical in that. And her vice presidential pick, which I think was a horrible pick, by the way for our country, because he is really out of it. But her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it’s execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay. And that’s not okay with me. Hence the vote. But what I did is something for 52 years they’ve been trying to get Roe V. Wade into the states.

And through the genius and heart and strength of six supreme court justices we were able to do that. Now, I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I believe strongly in it. Ronald Reagan did also. 85% of Republicans do. Exceptions. Very important. But we were able to get it. And now states are voting on it. And for the first time you’re going to see — look, this is an issue that’s torn our country apart for 52 years. Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote. And that’s what happened, happened. Now, Ohio, the vote was somewhat liberal. Kansas the vote was somewhat liberal. Much more liberal than people would have thought. But each individual state is voting. It’s the vote of the people now. It’s not tied up in the federal government. I did a great service in doing it. It took courage to do it. And the supreme court had great courage in doing it. And I give tremendous credit to those six justices.

1. Strawman Fallacy: Trump falsely claims that pro-choice advocates, including the Democrats, support "abortion in the ninth month" and "execution after birth." This misrepresents the actual stance of pro-choice advocates, as no mainstream political party or group advocates for infanticide or abortion after birth.
2. Category Error: The claim of "execution after birth" incorrectly conflates abortion with the killing of a born child. Abortion, by definition, involves terminating a pregnancy before birth, and once a baby is born, ending its life is classified as murder, not abortion.
3. Appeal to Fear: By suggesting that Democrats support infanticide and abortion at extreme stages, Trump uses emotionally charged language to evoke fear. This appeal to fear manipulates the audience’s emotions rather than engaging in a rational discussion about the realities of abortion law.
4. Ad Hominem: Trump makes a personal attack on Harris’s vice-presidential pick, describing him as "really out of it" and a "horrible pick." This distracts from the issue at hand by attacking the character and competency of an individual rather than addressing their policies or stance on abortion.
5. Appeal to Authority: Trump invokes Ronald Reagan and claims that "85% of Republicans" believe in exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, relying on authority figures and majority opinion to support his argument. This appeal suggests that the belief is correct because it is widely accepted or endorsed by influential figures, rather than providing substantive reasoning.
6. Hasty Generalization: Trump asserts that "every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative" wanted the issue of abortion to be returned to the states. This overgeneralizes the views of a diverse group of people, many of whom have nuanced positions on whether abortion should be decided at the state or federal level.
7. Appeal to Pride: Trump emphasizes the "courage" it took to overturn Roe v. Wade, praising both his own actions and those of the Supreme Court justices. This appeal to pride suggests that the decision was inherently virtuous, glossing over the moral and legal complexities of the issue.
8. Appeal to Tradition: Trump argues that returning abortion decisions to the states is the rightful solution because it reflects an older legal framework. This appeal to tradition suggests that because something aligns with past practices, it is inherently better, without explaining why the past system is preferable to the current one.

LINSEY DAVIS: There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born. Madam vice president, I want to get your response to President Trump.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, as I said, you’re going to hear a bunch of lies. And that’s not actually a surprising fact. Let’s understand how we got here. Donald Trump hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe V. Wade. And they did exactly as he intended. And now in over 20 states there are Trump abortion bans which make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care. In one state it provides prison for life. Trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest. Which understand what that means. A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral. And one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.

I have talked with women around our country. You want to talk about this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail and she’s bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn’t want that. Her husband didn’t want that. A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? They don’t want that. And I pledge to you when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe V. Wade as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law. But understand, if Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. Understand in his project 2025 there would be a national abortion ban. Understand in his project 2025 there would be a national abortion — a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages. I think the American people believe that certain freedoms, in particular the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body, should not be made by the government.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris begins by accusing Trump of lying without directly addressing specific points he made. This attack on Trump's character distracts from a detailed rebuttal of his claims.
2. Appeal to Emotion: Harris uses emotionally charged examples, such as a woman "bleeding out in a car" or a "12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest" being forced to carry a pregnancy. While these examples raise serious concerns, the emotional nature of the argument can overshadow a more balanced discussion about the broader complexities of abortion laws.
3. Slippery Slope: Harris suggests that re-electing Trump will lead to a national abortion ban and government monitoring of pregnancies and miscarriages. While presidential influence can shape policy, the claim that this will directly lead to such extreme outcomes lacks concrete evidence and may be speculative at this point.
4. Strawman Fallacy: Harris implies that Trump’s abortion policies universally result in doctors being afraid to treat miscarriages out of fear of going to jail. This oversimplifies and exaggerates the complexity of abortion laws, making it easier to criticize.
5. Appeal to Fear: The assertion that "Project 2025" would lead to monitoring pregnancies and miscarriages is designed to provoke fear, focusing on a dystopian scenario without providing specific evidence that such policies are in development.
6. Hasty Generalization: Harris claims that over 20 states have "Trump abortion bans" that make no exceptions for rape or incest, implying that all of these laws are equally severe. This generalizes the nature of state abortion laws, which vary in terms of restrictions and exceptions.

LINSEY DAVIS: Thank you, Vice President Harris.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, there she goes again. It’s a lie. I’m not signing a ban. And there’s no reason to sign a ban. Because we’ve gotten what everybody wanted. Democrats, Republicans and everybody else and every legal scholar wanted it to be brought back into the states. And the states are voting. And it may take a little time, but for 52 years this issue has torn our country apart. And they’ve wanted it back in the states. And I did something that nobody thought was possible. The states are now voting. What she says is an absolute lie. And as far as the abortion ban, no, I’m not in favor of abortion ban. But it doesn’t matter because this issue has now been taken over by the states.

1. Ad Hominem: Trump begins by dismissing Harris's statement with "there she goes again" and calling it a lie, without addressing the substance of her arguments. This is a personal attack on Harris's credibility rather than an engagement with her claims.
2. Strawman Fallacy: Trump claims that "everybody wanted" abortion laws to be brought back to the states, including "Democrats, Republicans and every legal scholar." This misrepresents the views of many Democrats and legal scholars, who support federal protections for abortion rights. By oversimplifying their position, Trump makes it easier to argue against it.
3. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy): Trump argues that because "everybody" (Democrats, Republicans, legal scholars) wanted the issue returned to the states, it must have been the right course of action. This appeal to what the majority supposedly wanted does not engage with the moral or legal nuances of the decision.
4. False Dichotomy: Trump frames the issue as if there are only two options: either abortion is banned nationally, or it is left entirely to the states. This ignores the possibility of a middle ground, such as federal protections with state-level variability.
5. Red Herring: Trump diverts attention from whether he would sign a national abortion ban by emphasizing that the issue is now in the hands of the states. While the question was about a potential national ban, he deflects the issue by focusing on state control.

LINSEY DAVIS: Would you veto a national abortion ban if it came to –

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I won’t have to because again — two things. Number one, she said she’ll go back to congress. She’ll never get the vote. It’s impossible for her to get the vote. Especially now with a 50-50 –essentially 50-50 in both senate and the house. She’s not going to get the vote. She can’t get the vote. She won’t even come close to it. So it’s just talk. You know what it reminds me of? When they said they’re going to get student loans terminated and it ended up being a total catastrophe. The student loans — and then her I think probably her boss, if you call him a boss, he spends all his time on the beach, but look, her boss went out and said we’ll do it again, we’ll do it a different way. He went out, got rejected again by the supreme court. So all these students got taunted with this whole thing about — this whole idea. And how unfair that would have been. Part of the reason they lost. To the millions and millions of people that had to pay off their student loans. They didn’t get it for free. But they were saying — it’s the same way that they talked about that, that they talk about abortion.

1. Red Herring: Trump deflects from the direct question about whether he would veto a national abortion ban by discussing the likelihood of Congress passing such a ban and bringing up an unrelated issue about student loans. This diversion shifts the focus away from the original question, which was about his position on vetoing a potential abortion ban.
2. Strawman Fallacy: By comparing Harris’s stance on abortion to the failed attempt to cancel student loans, Trump misrepresents her position. The comparison between abortion rights and student loan forgiveness oversimplifies and distorts the abortion debate, making it easier to criticize Harris’s approach by aligning it with a separate, failed initiative.
3. Ad Hominem: Trump makes a personal attack on Harris’s “boss” (likely President Biden), claiming that he "spends all his time on the beach." This remark is irrelevant to the question and serves as a personal insult rather than addressing the policy issue of abortion or vetoing a national ban.
4. Appeal to Ridicule: Trump mocks the idea of passing a national abortion ban or student loan forgiveness by using phrases like “just talk” and “taunted with this whole thing.” This dismissive tone seeks to belittle the legitimacy of these issues rather than engage with their potential merits.
5. Appeal to Futility: By repeatedly stating that "she can't get the vote," Trump suggests that there is no point in discussing Harris’s proposals because they will never pass. This fallacy dismisses the need for debate or consideration by claiming the effort is pointless, which avoids engaging with the substance of the issue.

LINSEY DAVIS: But if I could just get a yes or no. Because your running mate J.D. Vance has said that you would veto if it did come to your desk.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I didn’t discuss it with J.D. In all fairness. J.D. — And I don’t mind if he has a certain view but I think he was speaking for me but I really didn’t. Look, we don’t have to discuss it because she’d never be able to get it just like she couldn’t get student loans. They couldn’t get — they didn’t even come close to getting student loans. They didn’t even come close to getting student loans. They taunted young people and a lot of other people that had loans. They can never get this approved. So it doesn’t matter what she says about going to congress. Wonderful. Let’s go to congress. Do it. But the fact is that for years they wanted to get it out of congress and out of the federal government and we did something that everybody said couldn’t be done. And now you have a vote of the people on abortion.

1. Red Herring: Trump avoids directly answering the yes-or-no question about whether he would veto a national abortion ban by shifting the conversation to the failure of student loan forgiveness. This diversion distracts from the central issue of abortion and shifts the focus to an unrelated topic.
2. Appeal to Futility: Trump repeatedly emphasizes that Congress won't be able to pass a national abortion ban, implying that there is no need to discuss the possibility of vetoing it. This appeal to futility sidesteps the question by suggesting that the scenario is irrelevant, thus avoiding giving a clear stance on the matter.
3. Strawman Fallacy: By comparing the potential abortion ban to the failed attempt to cancel student loans, Trump oversimplifies and distorts Harris's efforts. This strawman argument allows him to dismiss her abortion stance by associating it with another policy that did not succeed, without directly addressing the complexities of the abortion issue.
4. Ad Hominem: Trump implies that Harris's effort to pass a national abortion ban would be as unsuccessful as her (or Biden’s) efforts to pass student loan forgiveness, attacking her competence indirectly. This is a personal attack on her effectiveness rather than addressing the core issue of abortion policy.
5. Appeal to Ridicule: Trump ridicules the idea of passing a national abortion ban and the student loan issue by using phrases like "they didn’t even come close" and "they taunted young people," dismissing these serious topics in a mocking tone rather than offering substantive counterarguments.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, I want to give you your time to respond. But I do want to ask, would you support any restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I absolutely support reinstating the protections of Roe V. Wade. And as you rightly mentioned, nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening. It’s insulting to the women of America. And understand what has been happening under Donald Trump’s abortion bans. Couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied IVF treatments. What is happening in our country, working people, working women who are working one or two jobs, who can barely afford childcare as it is, have to travel to another state to get on a plane sitting next to strangers, to go and get the health care she needs. Barely can afford to do it. And what you are putting her through is unconscionable. And the people of America have not — the majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. And that is why in every state where this issue has been on the ballot, in red and blue states both, the people of America have voted for freedom.

1. Appeal to Emotion: Harris uses emotionally charged examples, such as couples being denied IVF treatments and women having to travel for healthcare, to evoke sympathy and anger. While these are legitimate concerns, the emotional nature of these examples can overshadow the legal aspects of the abortion debate.
2. Strawman Fallacy: Harris implies that under "Trump's abortion bans," people are being denied IVF treatments, suggesting a direct and broad connection between his policies and this specific issue. This oversimplification exaggerates the impact of Trump's policies on fertility treatments, which are not universally or explicitly targeted by abortion restrictions.
3. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy): Harris argues that the majority of Americans support a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, and in states where abortion has been on the ballot, voters have chosen in favor of freedom. While majority opinion is important, this appeal does not address the legal complexities of the issue and suggests that popular support alone should dictate policy.
4. Hasty Generalization: Harris claims that in every state where abortion rights have been on the ballot, the majority of Americans have voted in favor of abortion rights. This is an overgeneralization, as public opinion on abortion varies across states, and different ballot initiatives have resulted in varied outcomes.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice president Harris –

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me, I have to respond. Another lie. It’s another lie. I have been a leader on IVF which is fertilization. The IVF — I have been a leader. In fact, when they got a very negative decision on IVF from the Alabama courts, I saw the people of Alabama and the legislature two days later voted it in. I’ve been a leader on it. They know that and everybody else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF. And the other thing, they — you should ask, will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month?

1. Ad Hominem: Trump dismisses Harris’s statements as “another lie” without providing specific evidence to refute her claims. This is a personal attack that seeks to undermine her credibility without engaging with the substance of her argument.
2. Appeal to Authority: Trump repeatedly refers to himself as a "leader" on IVF and claims that "everybody else knows it." While his leadership in this area might be relevant, simply asserting his role as a leader does not substantiate the claim or provide evidence for the connection between IVF and abortion laws. This relies on his authority or reputation to validate the argument without deeper exploration.
3. Red Herring: Trump shifts the conversation away from IVF to a question about whether Harris supports abortion in the "eighth month, ninth month, seventh month." This diverts the discussion from the IVF issue to late-term abortions, which is not the focus of the original discussion.
4. Strawman Fallacy: Trump implies that Harris supports abortion in the later stages of pregnancy (seventh, eighth, ninth months), which is a misrepresentation of her stance. Most pro-choice advocates do not support unrestricted late-term abortions, but Trump presents this extreme scenario as if it reflects her position, making it easier to criticize.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Come on.

No fallacy identified.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Would you do that? Why don’t you ask her that question –

1. Red Herring: Trump shifts the conversation away from the question about vetoing a national abortion ban to a question about late-term abortions, deflecting from the original issue.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Why don’t you answer the question would you veto –

No fallacy identified.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That’s the problem. Because under Roe v. Wade.

2. Red Herring: Again, Trump avoids answering the question about vetoing an abortion ban and instead shifts the conversation to Roe v. Wade and late-term abortions, deflecting from the original question

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Answer the question, would you veto—\

No fallacy identified.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You could do abortions in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month –

3. Strawman Fallacy: Trump misrepresents Harris’s stance by suggesting she supports abortion in the later stages of pregnancy, which is not a mainstream pro-choice position. This exaggeration makes her position easier to attack.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: That’s not true.

No fallacy identified.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And probably after birth. Just look at the governor, former governor of Virginia. The governor of Virginia said we put the baby aside and then we determine what we want to do with the baby.

4. Nonsensical Argument (Category Error): Trump refers to “abortions after birth,” which is logically impossible, as once a baby is born, ending its life is defined as murder, not abortion.
5. Appeal to Fear: By suggesting that there are discussions about infanticide ("put the baby aside and then we determine what to do with the baby"), Trump is appealing to fear to provoke an emotional reaction, despite the inaccuracy of this claim.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, thank you.

DAVID MUIR: We’re going to turn now to immigration and border security. We know it’s an issue that’s important to Republicans, Democrats, voters across the board in this country. Vice President Harris, you were tasked by President Biden with getting to the root causes of migration from Central America. We know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the Biden administration. This past June, President Biden imposed tough new asylum restrictions. We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this? 

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So I’m the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. And let me say that the United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported. And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings. But you know what happened to that bill? Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said kill the bill. And you know why? Because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And understand, this comes at a time where the people of our country actually need a leader who engages in solutions, who actually addresses the problems at hand. But what we have in the former president is someone who would prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And I’ll tell you something, he’s going to talk about immigration a lot tonight even when it’s not the subject that is being raised. And I’m going to actually do something really unusual and I’m going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump’s rallies because it’s a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams, and your, your desires. And I’ll tell you, I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will. 

1. Appeal to Authority: Harris begins by mentioning that she is the "only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations." While this may be true, it serves as an appeal to authority to bolster her credibility on immigration and border security without directly addressing the substance of the policy question.
2. Ad Hominem: Harris attacks Trump personally by accusing him of preferring to “run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.” While this could be a critique of his approach to immigration, it shifts from discussing policies to criticizing Trump’s motives, which is an attack on character rather than a rebuttal of his policies.
3. Strawman Fallacy: Harris mentions that Trump talks about "fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter" and "windmills cause cancer" during his rallies, which may not be directly related to his immigration policies. By presenting these exaggerated or irrelevant claims, she misrepresents Trump’s immigration stance, setting up a caricature of his views that is easier to dismiss.
4. Appeal to Ridicule: Harris mocks Trump’s rallies by saying that people leave out of “exhaustion and boredom” and that he doesn’t talk about the people’s “needs, dreams, and desires.” This mockery doesn’t address the substantive immigration policy discussion but instead ridicules Trump and his supporters, undermining the seriousness of the debate.
5. Red Herring: Harris shifts the conversation from a specific question about why the Biden administration waited until close to the election to impose new asylum restrictions to an attack on Trump’s rallies and communication style. This distracts from the original question about policy timing and decision-making.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump, on that point I want to get your response. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I would like to respond. 

DAVID MUIR: Let me just ask, though, why did you try to kill that bill and successfully so? That would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don’t go to her rallies. There’s no reason to go. And the people that do go, she’s busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can’t talk about that. People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. That’s because people want to take their country back. Our country is being lost. We’re a failing nation. And it happened three and a half years ago. And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War 3, just to go into another subject. What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what’s happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don’t want to talk — not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far — the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It’s a very simple phrase. Make America great again. She’s destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn’t have a chance of success. Not only success. We’ll end up being Venezuela on steroids. 

1. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Harris by claiming she buses people to her rallies and pays them to attend. This personal attack undermines her credibility without addressing the actual policy question regarding the immigration bill. The focus shifts to ridiculing her rallies rather than discussing the content of her argument or the immigration issue.
2. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy): Trump claims that his rallies are the "biggest" and the "most incredible" in the history of politics, implying that their size and popularity somehow validate his policies or leadership. This fallacy suggests that because many people attend his rallies, his position must be correct, which does not address the policy question.
3. Red Herring: Instead of answering why he opposed the immigration bill, Trump diverts the conversation to other unrelated topics, such as rally sizes, potential World War III, and people eating pets in Springfield. This distracts from the original question about border security and the bill.
4. Appeal to Fear: Trump paints an alarming picture of the state of the country, stating that it is "being lost" and that under Harris’s leadership, the U.S. would "end up being Venezuela on steroids" or even enter "World War 3." These exaggerated claims are designed to provoke fear rather than engage in a rational discussion about immigration policies.
5. Strawman Fallacy: Trump claims that immigrants are eating pets in Springfield and other towns, which is an extreme and highly questionable portrayal of the impact of immigration. This strawman argument exaggerates the effects of immigration, making it easier to criticize.

DAVID MUIR: I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community–  

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I’ve seen people on television 

1. Appeal to Anecdotal Evidence: Trump bases his argument on what he claims to have seen on television, using anecdotal evidence that is not verified or supported by credible sources. Anecdotes are weak forms of evidence, particularly when discussing widespread claims.

DAVID MUIR: Let me just say here this … 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that’s a good thing to say for a city manager. 

2. Appeal to Anecdotal Evidence: Trump continues to rely on anecdotal claims made on television about pets being eaten, which lacks verification or official evidence.
3. Appeal to Ignorance: By saying "maybe that’s a good thing to say for a city manager," Trump suggests that the city manager's denial might be politically motivated, implying that the absence of evidence isn't enough to dismiss the claim.

DAVID MUIR: I’m not taking this from television. I’m taking it from the city manager. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there. 

4. False Equivalence: Trump treats anecdotal claims from television as equally valid compared to the official statement from the Springfield city manager, creating a false equivalence between credible and non-credible sources.

DAVID MUIR: Again, the Springfield city manager says there’s no evidence of that. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’ll find out 

5. Appeal to Ignorance: Trump implies that the claim might still be true, even without credible evidence, by suggesting they will "find out" later. This shifts the burden of proof and suggests that something might be true simply because it hasn't been disproven.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, I’ll let you respond to the rest of what you heard. 

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Talk about extreme. Um, you know, this is I think one of the reasons why in this election I actually have the endorsement of 200 Republicans who have formally worked with President Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain including the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney and Congressmember Liz Cheney. And if you want to really know the inside track on who the former president is, if he didn’t make it clear already, just ask people who have worked with him. His former chief of staff, a four-star general, has said he has contempt for the constitution of the United States. His former national security adviser has said he is dangerous and unfit. His former secretary of defense has said the nation, the republic would never survive another Trump term. And when we listen to this kind of rhetoric, when the issues that affect the American people are not being addressed, I think the choice is clear in this election. 

1. Appeal to Authority: Harris mentions the endorsement of 200 Republicans, including prominent figures like Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney, to support her position. She cites the opinions of Trump’s former chief of staff, national security adviser, and secretary of defense to argue that Trump is unfit for office.
2. Appeal to Authority: Harris invokes a four-star general and other high-ranking officials who worked with Trump as evidence of his unfitness without engaging directly with Trump’s policies or actions.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, I’ll give you a quick minute to respond. 

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah. Thank you. Because when I hear that — see, I’m a different kind of a person. I fired most of those people. Not so graciously. They did bad things or a bad job. I fired them. They never fired one person. They didn’t fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban and the 13 people whose, whose, were just killed viciously and violently killed and I got to know the parents and the family. They should have fired all those generals, all those top people because that was one of the most incompetently handled situations anybody has ever seen. So when somebody does a bad job I fire them. And you take a guy like Esper. He was no good, I fired him. So he writes a book. Another one writes a book. Because with me they can write books. With nobody else can they. But they have done such a poor job. And they never fire anybody. Look at the economy. Look at the inflation. They didn’t fire any of their economists. They have the same people. That’s a good way not to have books written about you. But just to finish, I got more votes than any Republican in history by far. In fact, I got more votes than any president, sitting president in history by far. 

1. Ad Hominem:
   1. Trump dismisses his former staff members, stating, "I fired most of those people. Not so graciously. They did bad things or a bad job. I fired them." Instead of addressing any specific criticisms they might have made, Trump attacks their competence without providing concrete examples of their failures.
   2. Trump also dismisses former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper as "no good" without offering any details or justification for why Esper was ineffective. He focuses on Esper’s personal motives for writing a book after being fired, rather than engaging with the substance of any critiques that Esper may have raised.
2. Tu Quoque (You Too Fallacy): Trump deflects from the criticisms about his leadership by attacking Harris’s administration for not firing anyone in connection to the Afghanistan withdrawal, saying, "They didn’t fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban and the 13 people... They should have fired all those generals." Instead of addressing the critique about his former staff, Trump shifts the focus to claim that Harris's administration also failed to take action.
3. False Cause (Post Hoc): Trump implies that the failure to fire military leaders after the deaths of 13 U.S. service members during the Afghanistan withdrawal directly caused the disaster, stating, "They didn’t fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban... They should have fired all those generals." This oversimplifies the situation, attributing the failure of the operation solely to personnel decisions.
4. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy): Trump cites the number of votes he received as a defense of his leadership: "I got more votes than any Republican in history by far. In fact, I got more votes than any president, sitting president in history by far." While the number of votes may reflect popularity, it does not address the specific criticisms of his leadership or policies.
5. Red Herring: When Trump says, "Look at the economy. Look at the inflation. They didn’t fire any of their economists," he shifts the discussion from the original criticism about his leadership and endorsements from former officials to unrelated topics like inflation and economic personnel decisions. This diverts attention from the points raised by Harris without directly addressing them.

DAVID MUIR: Let me continue on immigration. It was what you wanted to talk about earlier. So let’s get back to your deportation proposal that the vice president has reacted to as well. President Trump, you called this the largest domestic deportation operation in the history of our country. You say you would use the National Guard. You say if things get out of control you’d have no problem using the U.S. military. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: With local police. 

No fallacy identified.

DAVID MUIR: You also said you would use local police. How would you deport 11 million undocumented immigrants? I know you believe that number is much higher. Take us through this. What does this look like? Will authorities be going door to door in this country? 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. It is much higher because of them. They allowed criminals. Many, many, millions of criminals. They allowed terrorists. They allowed common street criminals. They allowed people to come in, drug dealers, to come into our country, and they’re now in the United States. And told by their countries like Venezuela don’t ever come back or we’re going to kill you. Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down? You know why? Because they’ve taken their criminals off the street and they’ve given them to her to put into our country. And this will be one of the greatest mistakes in history for them to allow — and I think they probably did it because they think they’re going to get votes. But it’s not worth it. Because they’re destroying the fabric of our country by what they’ve done. There’s never been anything done like this at all. They’ve destroyed the fabric of our country. Millions of people let in. And all over the world crime is down. All over the world except here. Crime here is up and through the roof. Despite their fraudulent statements that they made. Crime in this country is through the roof. And we have a new form of crime. It’s called migrant crime. And it’s happening at levels that nobody thought possible. 

1. Hasty Generalization: Trump claims that "millions of criminals" and "many, many millions" of undocumented immigrants are criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists. This overgeneralizes the entire undocumented population based on the actions of some individuals without providing specific evidence for such large numbers.
2. Appeal to Fear: Trump uses emotionally charged language to evoke fear by claiming that millions of criminals, including terrorists and drug dealers, have been allowed into the U.S. by his opponents. He also introduces a term "migrant crime" and implies that crime levels related to immigrants are unprecedented, all without solid evidence, aiming to provoke fear rather than inform with facts.
3. False Cause (Post Hoc): Trump suggests that crime is down in countries like Venezuela and elsewhere because they "gave" their criminals to the U.S. This is a simplified and speculative cause-and-effect relationship, implying that a reduction in crime abroad is directly due to sending criminals to the U.S., which lacks any supporting evidence.
4. Strawman Fallacy: Trump implies that his opponents have intentionally allowed dangerous criminals into the country because they think it will help them "get votes." This misrepresents his opponents' position, creating an extreme and inaccurate version of their immigration policy.
5. Appeal to Conspiracy: The claim that countries are intentionally "sending criminals" to the U.S. and that this is part of a broader political plot to gain votes involves a conspiratorial narrative that lacks supporting evidence and casts his opponents' actions in an unfounded and sinister light.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country, but Vice President the… 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: use me, the FBI — they were defrauding statements. They didn’t include the worst cities. They didn’t include the cities with the worst crime. It was a fraud. Just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud. 

1. Appeal to Conspiracy: Trump claims that the FBI’s statistics are fraudulent, implying a deliberate cover-up of crime in "the worst cities." This suggests a conspiracy without presenting any concrete evidence to back up the accusation, casting doubt on the FBI's integrity and suggesting they manipulated data for some ulterior motive.
2. Hasty Generalization: Trump broadly dismisses FBI crime data as fraudulent without providing specific examples or details to support this sweeping claim. This generalization attacks the entire report based on an unsupported assumption about selective data exclusion.
3. Red Herring: Instead of directly addressing the claim that violent crime is decreasing, Trump deflects the discussion by bringing up job numbers and alleging fraud in employment data. This diverts attention from the question of crime statistics and shifts the focus to an unrelated issue.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. I’ll let you respond, Vice President Harris. 

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I think this is so rich. Coming from someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes, economic crimes, election interference, has been found liable for sexual assault and his next big court appearance is in November at his own criminal sentencing. And let’s be clear where each person stands on the issue of what is important about respect for the rule of law and respect for law enforcement. The former vice president called for defunding, federal law enforcement, 45,000 agents, get this, on the day after he was arraigned on 34 felony counts. So let’s talk about what is important in this race. It is important that we move forward, that we turn the page on this same old tired rhetoric. And address the needs of the American people, address what we need to do about the housing shortage, which I have a plan for. Address what we must do to support our small businesses. Address bringing down the price of groceries. But frankly, the American people are exhausted with the same old tired playbook. 

1. Ad Hominem: Harris begins by attacking Trump personally by listing his legal troubles (national security crimes, election interference, sexual assault). While these are factual, this is a personal attack on Trump's character rather than addressing policy differences or debating substantive issues directly. This tactic detracts from the discussion of actual policies or ideas relevant to the debate.

2. Guilt by Association: By bringing up Trump's legal history, Harris attempts to discredit him by associating his legal troubles with his ability to lead, implying that because Trump has faced criminal accusations, his policy positions are less valid. This tactic diverts from addressing specific arguments about the "rule of law" or law enforcement, which she mentions.

3. Appeal to Authority (Implicit): When Harris mentions Trump’s legal charges and prosecutions, she is implicitly appealing to the authority of the justice system and legal proceedings to support her argument. While the charges may be valid, this doesn't necessarily address Trump's arguments on policy or the issues that are supposed to be at the heart of the debate. It focuses more on legal outcomes to dismiss his credibility.

4. Red Herring: Harris shifts the conversation from the original topic (law enforcement and respect for the rule of law) to policy issues such as housing shortages, small businesses, and the price of groceries. While these are important topics, they are unrelated to the immediate point of discussion, which is Trump’s stance on law enforcement and defunding agents.

5. Strawman: Harris misrepresents Trump's stance on law enforcement by framing it as a clear-cut issue of him "calling for defunding federal law enforcement." While she refers to a specific incident (Trump’s call to defund after being arraigned), she simplifies the argument, making it easier to criticize without addressing the nuances of Trump's actual policy or reasoning.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. Every one of those cases was started by them against their political opponent. And I’m winning most of them and I’ll win the rest on appeal. And you saw that with the decision that came down just recently from the Supreme Court. I’m winning most of them. But those are cases, it’s called weaponization. Never happened in this country. They weaponized the justice department. Every one of those cases was involved with the DOJ, from Atlanta and Fani Willis — to the attorney general of New York and the D.A. In New York. Every one of those cases. And then they say oh, he was — he’s a criminal. They’re the ones that made them go after me. By the way, Joe Biden was found essentially guilty on the documents case. And what happened in my documents case? They said oh, that’s the toughest of them all. A complete and total victory. Two months ago it was thrown out. It’s weaponization. And they used it. And it’s never happened in this country. They used it to try and win an election. They’re fake cases. 

1. Appeal to Victimhood: Trump frames himself as the victim of a political conspiracy, suggesting that all the legal cases against him were initiated by political opponents as a form of "weaponization." This casts doubt on the legitimacy of the legal process without providing concrete evidence, focusing on portraying himself as unjustly targeted rather than engaging with the facts of the cases.

2. Appeal to Incredulity: Trump dismisses the legal actions taken against him by calling them "fake cases." He implies that the charges are so unbelievable or outrageous that they must be false, without offering detailed reasoning or evidence for why these cases lack merit.

3. Strawman Fallacy: Trump simplifies the legal proceedings against him by categorizing them as part of a politically motivated "weaponization" of the Department of Justice. He doesn't engage with the specific accusations or evidence in each case but reduces the issue to a broad claim of political persecution, making it easier to dismiss the legitimacy of the cases.

4. False Equivalence: Trump claims that "Joe Biden was found essentially guilty on the documents case" and compares it to his own legal troubles, suggesting a parallel between his situation and Biden’s. However, this is a false equivalence, as the specifics of the cases and their legal outcomes may differ significantly, and Trump does not provide evidence that Biden was "essentially guilty."

5. Red Herring: Trump introduces the topic of Joe Biden's alleged guilt in a separate documents case as a way to divert attention from his own legal issues. This shifts the focus away from the original subject of his legal battles and the claim of "weaponization," making it harder to stay on topic.

6. Appeal to Authority (Misuse): Trump references a recent decision from the Supreme Court to suggest that he is "winning most of them" without providing details on the specific case or decision. This vague appeal to authority assumes that the audience will take the Supreme Court's involvement as a sign of victory, without explaining the context of the ruling or how it supports his broader argument.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. A really quick response here, Vice President Harris, on this notion of weaponization of the justice department. 

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well let’s talk about extreme. And understand the context in which this election in 2024 is taking place. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the white house again. Understand, this is someone who has openly said he would terminate, I’m quoting, terminate the constitution of the United States. That he would weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies. Someone who has openly expressed disdain for members of our military. Understand what it would mean if Donald Trump were back in the white house with no guardrails. Because certainly, we know now the court won’t stop him. We know J.D. Vance is not going to stop him. It’s up to the American people to stop him. 

1. Appeal to Fear: Harris uses emotionally charged language, warning that if Trump is re-elected, he would have "no guardrails" and would act without accountability. This frames Trump's potential presidency as a significant threat, invoking fear rather than focusing on concrete policy evidence or specific actions he would take.

2. Slippery Slope: Harris suggests that if Trump returns to the White House, he would "terminate the constitution" and weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies. This implies that electing Trump would lead to extreme and disastrous outcomes, without providing direct evidence that such steps would immediately follow. The scenario escalates quickly without showing a logical progression.

3. Appeal to Authority: Harris refers to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding Trump's immunity from misconduct. However, she does not provide the specific context or details of the ruling, relying on the authority of the Court's decision to strengthen her argument. This appeal assumes the audience will accept the claim without further explanation or evidence.

4. Strawman Fallacy: Harris attributes extreme statements to Trump, such as "terminate the constitution of the United States" and claims about weaponizing the Department of Justice. While Trump has made controversial statements, this portrayal simplifies and exaggerates his potential actions, making it easier to criticize him without addressing the broader context of his comments.

5. Appeal to Consequences: Harris frames Trump’s potential re-election as a catastrophe that only "the American people" can prevent. This focuses on the negative outcomes of Trump’s presidency rather than engaging with his policies or platform, emphasizing the worst-case scenario to persuade voters against him.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. Linsey? 

LINDSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president… 

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This is the one that weaponized. Not me. She weaponized. I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me. They talk about democracy. I’m a threat to democracy. They’re the threat to democracy – With the fake Russia Russia Russia investigation that went nowhere. 

1. Tu Quoque (You Too Fallacy):
Trump deflects the accusation of weaponizing the Department of Justice by claiming that it was actually Harris (and by implication, her allies) who "weaponized" it. Rather than addressing the specific criticism of his own actions, he turns the argument around to accuse his opponent of the same behavior, avoiding direct engagement with the charge against him.

2. Hyperbole:
Trump exaggerates by saying he "probably took a bullet to the head" because of the things said about him. This metaphor is extreme and serves to dramatize his position as a victim of political attacks, overstating the impact of criticism against him.

3. Appeal to Victimhood:
By claiming that "they talk about democracy" but "I’m a threat to democracy," Trump frames himself as the victim of a false narrative. He portrays himself as unfairly labeled a threat while shifting the blame to his opponents. This appeal distracts from substantive debate and emphasizes his personal grievances.

4. Appeal to Conspiracy:
Trump refers to the "fake Russia Russia Russia investigation," dismissing the entire investigation as a conspiracy against him without addressing the actual details or findings of the investigation. This undermines the legitimacy of the legal and political processes involved, casting them as part of a plot against him.

5. Red Herring:
By bringing up the Russia investigation, Trump shifts the conversation away from the topic at hand (the weaponization of the justice system) and focuses on a separate issue that had already been concluded. This diversion draws attention away from the immediate argument about weaponization and moves it to a different controversy.

DAVID MUIR: We have a lot to get to. Linsey?

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don’t. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you’re taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So my values have not changed. And I’m going to discuss every one — at least every point that you’ve made. But in particular, let’s talk about fracking because we’re here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking. My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil. As it relates to my values, let me tell you, I grew up a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager. The values I bring to the importance of home ownership knowing not everybody got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times, is a value that I bring to my work to say we are going to work with the private sector and home builders to increase 3 million homes, increase by 3 million homes by the end of my first term. My work that is related to having a friend when I was in high school who was sexually assaulted by her stepfather. And my focus then, on protecting women and children from violent crime, is based on a value that is deeply grounded in the importance of standing up for those who are most vulnerable. My work that is about protecting social security and Medicare is based on long-standing work that I have done. Protecting seniors from scams. My values have not changed. And what is important is that there is a president who actually brings values and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down and name-calling. The true measure of the leader is the leader who actually understands that strength is not in beating people down, it’s in lifting people up. I intend to be that president.

1. Red Herring:
Harris starts by acknowledging the question about her shifting policy positions but quickly pivots to discussing fracking, home ownership, and personal values such as her upbringing and personal experiences. While these topics are meaningful, they divert from directly answering why her policy positions on fracking, gun buyback programs, and border crossings have changed. She shifts the focus away from policy shifts to emotional appeals about her values and leadership.

2. Appeal to Emotion:
Harris uses emotionally charged examples, such as her upbringing, her friend's experience with sexual assault, and her focus on protecting vulnerable populations, to reinforce her values. While these stories may reflect her character, they do not address the substance of the policy changes in question and instead appeal to the audience's emotions to strengthen her argument.

3. Strawman Fallacy:
When Harris brings up the comparison between herself and Trump, referencing his $400 million inheritance and bankruptcies, she shifts the debate to a personal critique of Trump’s finances rather than focusing on her policy changes. This sets up a caricature of Trump to make her argument about leadership values easier to argue, while sidestepping the original question about her own policy shifts.

4. False Dichotomy:
Harris implies that leadership can only take two forms: lifting people up (her approach) versus beating people down (her opponent's approach). This creates a false choice between two extremes, simplifying the complex nature of leadership and ignoring other leadership styles or policy approaches.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, your response.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, first of all, I wasn’t given $400 million. I wish I was. My father was a Brooklyn builder. Brooklyn, Queens. And a great father and I learned a lot from him. But I was given a fraction of that, a tiny fraction, and I built it into many, many billions of dollars. Many, many billions. And when people see it, they are even surprised. So, we don’t have to talk about that. Fracking? She’s been against it for 12 years. Uh, defund the police. She’s been against that forever. She gave all that stuff up, very wrongly, very horribly. And everybody’s laughing at it, okay? They’re all laughing at it. She gave up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different policies. Like, she was big on defund the police.

1. Strawman Fallacy:
Trump misrepresents Harris’s position on multiple issues, claiming that she has been "against fracking for 12 years" and has been a long-time supporter of "defund the police." While Harris’s positions may have shifted over time, Trump oversimplifies and distorts her stance, making it easier to attack. For example, Harris never strongly advocated defunding the police in the same broad manner Trump suggests.

2. Appeal to Popularity:
Trump states, "Everybody’s laughing at it, okay? They’re all laughing at it," implying that Harris’s shift in policy positions is widely ridiculed by others. This suggests that because many people supposedly laugh at or dismiss her actions, they must be wrong, which is not a valid argument for the correctness of his position.

3. Appeal to Authority (Personal):
Trump defends his wealth-building by referencing his father and stating that he built a fortune "into many, many billions of dollars." He uses his personal financial success as proof of his capability, suggesting that his business success validates his leadership or positions on political issues, rather than addressing the policies or criticisms directly.

4. Red Herring:
Rather than addressing the specific policy shifts of Harris that were brought up, Trump diverts the conversation to his personal background and financial success, saying, "I wasn’t given $400 million... I built it into many billions." This distracts from the topic of fracking or police funding and shifts the conversation to his personal narrative.

5. Hasty Generalization:
Trump asserts that Harris has "given up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different policies." This is an exaggerated and generalized claim without evidence to support it. The exact number of policies she may have altered or shifted is not provided, and the vague nature of this assertion makes it difficult to verify.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: That’s not true. [mouthed, not audible]

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: In Minnesota, she went out — wait a minute. I’m talking now. If you don’t mind. Please. Does that sound familiar?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Don’t lie. [lie is audible]

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: She went out — she went out in Minnesota and wanted to let criminals that killed people, that burned down Minneapolis, she went out and raised money to get them out of jail. She did things that nobody would ever think of. Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison. This is a radical left liberal that would do this. She wants to confiscate your guns and she will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania. If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one. Just to finish one thing, so important in my opinion, so, I got the oil business going like nobody has ever done before. They took, when they took over, they got rid of it, started getting rid of it, and the prices were going up the roof. They immediately let these guys go to where they were. I would have been five times, four times, five times higher because you’re talking about 3 1/2 years ago. They got it up to where I was because they had no choice. Because the prices of energy were quadrupling and doubling. You saw what happened to gasoline. So, they said let’s go back to Trump. But if she won the election, the day after that election, they’ll go back to destroying our country and oil will be dead, fossil fuel will be dead. We’ll go back to windmills and we’ll go back to solar, where they need a whole desert to get some energy to come out. You ever see a solar plant? By the way, I’m a big fan of solar. But they take 400, 500 acres of desert soil—

1. Hasty Generalization: Trump claims that Harris raised money to bail out criminals who "killed people" and "burned down Minneapolis." While Harris did express support for bail funds during the protests, his statement broadly generalizes all individuals involved, framing her as supporting violent criminals without providing specific evidence for these claims.

2. Appeal to Fear: Trump suggests that Harris wants to perform "transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison" and "confiscate your guns." These claims are designed to provoke fear, portraying Harris as supporting radical policies without substantiating these extreme assertions. This tactic attempts to instill fear of potential future actions rather than engaging with her actual platform.

3. Strawman Fallacy: Trump distorts Harris's position on fracking by saying she "will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania" and will "end fracking on day one." Harris has clarified her stance on fracking multiple times, but Trump presents a simplified and exaggerated version of her position, making it easier to attack.

4. Slippery Slope: Trump claims that if Harris wins the election, "fossil fuel will be dead" and the U.S. will rely solely on wind and solar power. He assumes that her election will lead to the immediate destruction of entire industries without supporting evidence, portraying an extreme scenario without acknowledging the complexity of energy policies.

5. False Cause (Post Hoc): Trump attributes rising energy prices after his administration solely to the policies of the new administration, claiming they "got rid of it" (referring to fossil fuels) and directly caused price hikes. This oversimplifies the cause of energy price fluctuations, which are influenced by many factors, not just changes in policy.

6. Red Herring: Trump pivots from discussing Harris’s policies to highlighting his own achievements in the oil industry, stating that "I got the oil business going like nobody has ever done before." This shifts the focus away from Harris’s policy positions and places the spotlight on his past administration, without addressing the specific claims made about Harris.

7. Hyperbole: Trump uses exaggerated language, such as stating that energy prices would have been "four times, five times higher" without his policies. This claim inflates the consequences of not following his policies, without providing data to substantiate such an extreme outcome.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump—

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: These are not good things for the environment that she understands.

1. Ad Hominem: Trump subtly attacks Harris's understanding of environmental issues, implying that she does not comprehend the negative aspects of certain energy policies. This focuses on discrediting her intelligence or competence rather than engaging with her actual arguments or policy positions regarding the environment.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, we have a lot of issues that we have to get to. We’re out of time. Thank you.

DAVID MUIR: Linsey, thank you. We have an election in just 56 days. I want to talk about the peaceful transfer of power, which of course we all know was a cornerstone of our democracy and the role of a president in a moment of crisis. Mr. President, on January 6th you told your supporters to march to the Capitol. You said you would be right there with them. The country and the world saw what played out at the Capitol that day. The officers coming under attack. Aides in the West Wing say you watched it unfold on television off the Oval Office. You did send out tweets, but it was more than two hours before you sent out that video message telling your supporters to go home. Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You just said a thing that isn’t covered. Peacefully and patriotically, I said during my speech. Not later on. Peacefully and patriotically. And nobody on the other side was killed. Ashli Babbitt was shot by an out-of-control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It’s a disgrace. But we didn’t do — this group of people that have been treated so badly. I ask, what about all the people that are pouring into our country and killing people? That she allowed to pour in. She was the border czar. Remember that. She was the border czar. She doesn’t want to be called the border czar because she’s embarrassed by the border. In fact, she said at the beginning, I’m surprised you’re not talking about the border yet. That’s because she knows what a bad job they’ve done. What about those people? What’s, when are they going to be prosecuted — when are these people from countries all over the world, not just South America, they’re coming in from all over the world, David, all over the world. And crime rates are down all over the world because of it –

1. Red Herring: Trump deflects from the question about the events of January 6th and his responsibility by shifting the conversation to other topics, such as immigration and the border crisis. He mentions "people pouring into our country and killing people" and Harris's role as "border czar," which distracts from the original question about the Capitol attack.

2. False Cause (Post Hoc): Trump implies that because Harris was the "border czar," she is responsible for the crimes committed by undocumented immigrants entering the country. This creates a false cause-and-effect relationship without evidence that Harris’s role directly led to the actions of specific individuals.

3. Appeal to Emotion: By emphasizing the shooting of Ashli Babbitt and calling it a "disgrace," Trump appeals to the audience's emotions, particularly sympathy and anger. This tactic shifts focus from his actions on January 6th and evokes a sense of injustice without engaging with the broader issues of the day's violence or his role in it.

4. Whataboutism: When asked about his actions on January 6th, Trump responds by deflecting attention to other perceived problems, such as crime committed by immigrants. This is a classic example of whataboutism, where he avoids addressing his own actions by bringing up unrelated issues.

5. Strawman Fallacy: Trump misrepresents the broader discussion about the events of January 6th by focusing on specific details like Ashli Babbitt's death, rather than engaging with the actual question about his responsibility or the actions of his supporters. This simplifies the issue to a point where it no longer addresses the original concern.

DAVID MUIR: But let me just ask you—

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But when are those, David, when are those people going to be prosecuted? When are the people that burned down Minneapolis going to be prosecuted or in Seattle? They went into Seattle, they took over a big percentage of the city of Seattle. When are those people going to be prosecuted?

1. Whataboutism: Trump again deflects from the question about January 6th by bringing up unrelated events, such as the protests in Minneapolis and Seattle. Rather than addressing his own actions and the actions of his supporters on January 6th, he shifts the focus to other instances of unrest, avoiding the question of his responsibility.

2. Red Herring: By asking about the prosecution of individuals involved in the events in Minneapolis and Seattle, Trump shifts the conversation away from the Capitol riot and his role in it. This is a diversion tactic that distracts from the original question, steering the conversation toward other incidents of civil unrest that are not directly related to January 6th.

3. False Equivalence: Trump implies that the unrest in Minneapolis and Seattle is comparable to the Capitol insurrection. While both involve protests and violence, the events are not equivalent in terms of their context, scope, or implications for democracy. This comparison is misleading and oversimplifies both situations.

DAVID MUIR: But let me just ask you—

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You might ask her that question.

1. Red Herring:
Trump attempts to shift the focus of the conversation away from himself by suggesting the question be asked to Harris instead. This distracts from the original topic—his role in the events of January 6th—and moves the discussion toward his opponent.

2. Tu Quoque (You Too Fallacy):
Trump implies that Harris is equally or more deserving of scrutiny by suggesting that she should be questioned instead of him. This is a form of deflection, avoiding accountability for his own actions by pointing to his opponent’s perceived faults or responsibilities.

DAVID MUIR: You were the president. You were watching it unfold on television. It’s a very simple question as we move forward toward another election. Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day? Yes or no.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I had nothing to do with that other than they asked me to make a speech. I showed up for a speech. I said, I think it’s going to be big. I went to Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington, D.C. And the mayor put it back in writing, as you know. I said, you know, this is going to be a very big rally or whatever you want to call it. And again, it wasn’t done by me. It was done by others. I said I’d like to give you 10,000 National Guard or soldiers. They rejected me. Nancy Pelosi rejected me. It was just two weeks ago, her daughter has a tape of her saying she is fully responsible for what happened. They want to get rid of that tape. It would have never happened if Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington did their jobs. I wasn’t responsible for security. Nancy Pelosi was responsible. She didn’t do her job.

1. Red Herring: Trump deflects the question about whether he regrets his actions on January 6th by shifting the conversation to the role of Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington, D.C., in handling security. This tactic diverts attention from his actions or inaction on that day, avoiding a direct response to the question about his responsibility.

2. Appeal to Blame Shifting: Trump places the responsibility for the events of January 6th on others, particularly Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington, D.C., implying that it was their failure to accept his offer of National Guard troops that led to the violence. This deflection attempts to shift the blame without addressing his own role or influence over the crowd.

3. Tu Quoque (You Too Fallacy): Trump argues that Pelosi and the mayor are more responsible for the chaos on January 6th, suggesting that their failure to act is the primary cause of the unrest. Rather than addressing his own actions, he redirects criticism toward others in an attempt to deflect responsibility.

4. Strawman Fallacy: By focusing on the refusal of National Guard troops, Trump constructs a version of the situation that emphasizes the security failures of others, simplifying the complex causes of the January 6th riot. He does not engage with the broader issue of his rhetoric leading up to the event or his actions during the riot, which were at the core of the question.

DAVID MUIR: The question was about you as president, not about Former Speaker Pelosi. But I do want Vice President Harris to respond here.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I was at the Capitol on January 6th. I was the Vice President-Elect. I was also an acting senator. I was there. And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation’s Capitol, to desecrate our nation’s Capitol. On that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured. And some died. And understand, the former president has been indicted and impeached for exactly that reason. But this is not an isolated situation. Let’s remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side. Let’s remember that when it came to the Proud Boys, a militia, the president said, the former president said, “Stand back and stand by.” So for everyone watching who remembers what January 6th was, I say we don’t have to go back. Let’s not go back. We’re not going back. It’s time to turn the page. And if that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you. To stand for country. To stand for our democracy. To stand for rule of law. And to end the chaos. And to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy ‘cause you don’t like the outcome. And be clear on that point. Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if this — and the outcome of this election is not to his liking. Let’s turn the page on this. Let’s not go back. Let’s chart a course for the future and not go backwards to the past.

1. Appeal to Emotion: Harris evokes strong emotional imagery by recounting the events of January 6th, including the injury and death of law enforcement officers, to emphasize the gravity of the situation. While these events are factually correct, this appeal to emotion overshadows the logical aspects of the discussion by stirring anger and fear rather than focusing solely on the core issue of accountability.

2. Guilt by Association: Harris links Trump to other incidents, such as Charlottesville and his comments on the Proud Boys, implying that these events are directly connected to his actions on January 6th. While these incidents may reflect Trump’s rhetoric, associating him with every negative incident involving extremists shifts the focus from the specific question about January 6th to a broader attack on his character.

3. Strawman Fallacy: By referencing Trump's statement, "There were fine people on each side" in the context of Charlottesville, Harris simplifies his remarks into a narrative of moral equivalency, omitting the broader context of his full statement. This builds a distorted version of his stance to make it easier to criticize, rather than addressing his actual comments in full.

4. Slippery Slope: Harris implies that if Trump is re-elected, chaos and attacks on democracy will continue, referencing his comment about a "bloodbath" if the election doesn’t go his way. While Trump’s rhetoric may be concerning, this conclusion assumes a worst-case scenario without providing direct evidence that such extreme outcomes will occur.

5. Ad Hominem: Harris attacks Trump’s character, painting him as someone who incites violence and undermines democracy. While these are serious accusations based on past events, they focus more on discrediting Trump personally than discussing specific policies or actions related to the future.

DAVID MUIR: Let me just follow up here—

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have said blood bash, bath. It was a different term, and it was a term that related to energy, because they have destroyed our energy business. That was where bloodbath was. Also, on Charlottesville, that story has been as you would say, debunked. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Jesse — all of these people, they covered it. If they go an extra sentence, they will see it was perfect. It was debunked in almost every newspaper. But they still bring it up just like they bring 2025 up. They bring all of this stuff up. I ask you this. You talk about the Capitol. Why are we allowing these millions of people to come through on the southern border? How come she’s not doing — and I’ll tell you what I would do. And I would be very proud to do it. I would say we would both leave this debate right now, I’d like to see her go down to Washington, D.C. during this debate ‘cause we’re wasting a lot of time. Go down to — because she’s been so bad, it’s so ridiculous. Go down to Washington, D.C. And let her sign a bill to close up the border. Because they have the right to do it. They don’t need bills. They have the right to do it. The President of the United States, you’ll get him out of bed. You’ll wake him up at 4:00 in the afternoon, you’ll say come on. Come on down to the office, let’s sign a bill. If he … if he signs a bill that the border is closed, all he has to do is say it to the border patrol, who are phenomenal. If they do that, the border is closed.

1. Red Herring: Trump diverts from the discussion of January 6th and Charlottesville to unrelated topics such as energy policy and the southern border. By bringing up issues like border security, he avoids addressing the specific accusations about his rhetoric and role in events like the Charlottesville rally and the Capitol attack. This distracts from the original topic at hand.

2. Appeal to Authority: Trump references media figures like Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Jesse Waters to support his claim that the Charlottesville story was "debunked." Rather than providing evidence or clarification from credible sources or directly addressing the criticisms, he leans on the opinions of these media personalities to assert that the story is false.

3. False Equivalence: Trump compares the issue of border security to the Capitol riots and Charlottesville, implying that the failure to secure the southern border is equally or more significant than the events of January 6th or the aftermath of Charlottesville. These are unrelated issues with different contexts and implications, making the comparison misleading.

4. Whataboutism: Trump avoids addressing his role in the Capitol riot and Charlottesville by shifting the conversation to border security, asking why Harris isn’t addressing the millions of people crossing the southern border. This tactic deflects from his responsibility in those events by highlighting another issue instead.

5. Strawman Fallacy: When Trump claims that Harris could solve the border crisis simply by signing a bill, he misrepresents the complexities of immigration policy and the powers of the executive branch. This simplifies the issue, making it easier to criticize Harris without engaging with the actual policy intricacies or the legislative process.

6. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Harris personally, implying that she is ineffective and has failed to do her job, suggesting she "wake up" the president to sign a bill to close the border. This personal attack focuses on discrediting her rather than addressing the specific points raised in the debate.

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President –

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Those people are killing many people, unlike J-6.

1. False Equivalence:
Trump draws a comparison between the people involved in immigration and those involved in the January 6th Capitol riot, suggesting that immigrants are "killing many people" while downplaying the severity of January 6th. These two events are unrelated, and the comparison falsely equates the actions and consequences of the two groups, oversimplifying the issues.

2. Whataboutism:
Instead of addressing the events of January 6th, Trump shifts the focus to crimes allegedly committed by immigrants, particularly at the southern border. This tactic deflects attention from his role in the Capitol insurrection by bringing up an entirely different issue that is irrelevant to the original question.

3. Hasty Generalization:
Trump suggests that immigrants crossing the southern border are "killing many people," which is an overgeneralization. While crimes may be committed by some individuals, this statement unfairly characterizes an entire group of people without specific evidence or context to support such a broad claim.

DAVID MUIR: We talked immigration here tonight. I do want to focus on this next issue to both of you. Because it really brings us, this into focus. Truth in these times that we’re living in. Mr. President, for 3 and a half years after you lost the 2020 election you repeatedly falsely claimed that you won, many times saying you won in a landslide. In the past couple of weeks leading up to this debate, you have said, quote, you lost by a whisker, that you, quote, didn’t quite make it, that you came up a little bit short.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I said that?

1. Evasion:
When Trump responds, "I said that?" he avoids directly addressing the issue of his past claims about winning the 2020 election. Instead of engaging with the contradiction pointed out by David Muir, Trump casts doubt on whether he made the statement, deflecting from the core issue of truth and accountability.

2. Feigning Ignorance:
Trump’s response implies he may not remember or acknowledge the quotes attributed to him, despite extensive public coverage of his statements. This tactic allows him to avoid directly responding to the inconsistency between his previous claims and his more recent statements.

DAVID MUIR: Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, I don’t acknowledge that at all.

1. Contradiction:
Trump had been quoted as recently saying that he "lost by a whisker" and "came up a little bit short." By refusing to acknowledge losing the 2020 election in this response, he directly contradicts his earlier statements, creating confusion about his actual position and undermining his credibility.

2. Denial of Reality (Argument from Ignorance):
Despite overwhelming evidence, including court rulings and election certifications across the country, Trump continues to deny that he lost the 2020 election. This fallacy involves denying established facts, using the absence of personal acknowledgment as a reason to maintain his claim, despite the lack of evidence supporting widespread fraud.

3. Appeal to Belief:
Trump's refusal to acknowledge his loss can be seen as an appeal to his supporters' belief in his victory, even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary. By continuing to assert this position, he reinforces his narrative to those who already subscribe to his claims, rather than engaging with the factual record.

DAVID MUIR: But you did say that.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I said that sarcastically. You know that. It was said, oh we lost by a whisker. That was said sarcastically. Look, there’s so much proof. All you have to do is look at it. And they should have sent it back to the legislatures for approval. I got almost 75 million votes. The most votes any sitting president has ever gotten. I was told if I got 63, which was what I got in 2016, you can’t be beaten. The election, people should never be thinking about an election as fraudulent. We need two things. We need walls. We need — and we have to have it. We have to have borders. And we have to have good elections.

Our elections are bad. And a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote. They can’t even speak English. They don’t even know what country they’re in practically. And these people are trying to get them to vote. And that’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country.

1. Post Hoc Fallacy: Trump implies that his high vote count in 2020 (nearly 75 million votes) should guarantee a win, stating that "if I got 63 [million votes] in 2016, you can't be beaten." This reasoning falsely assumes that his increase in votes should have directly led to victory, ignoring the fact that elections are decided by the total votes and electoral process, not just by increasing one's own total.

2. Red Herring: Trump shifts the conversation from discussing his loss and the election results to the topics of immigration and voting, asserting that illegal immigrants are being allowed into the country to vote. This distracts from the question about the 2020 election and diverts attention to a different issue, thereby avoiding the core discussion.

3. Appeal to Popularity: Trump emphasizes that he received "the most votes any sitting president has ever gotten," implying that this should validate his claim of winning or being cheated. However, the number of votes alone does not determine the outcome; the electoral process does. This argument appeals to the idea that a high vote count should automatically confer legitimacy or victory.

4. False Cause: By linking illegal immigration to fraudulent voting without evidence, Trump creates a false cause-and-effect relationship. He suggests that immigrants are allowed into the country specifically to vote, even though there is no substantial evidence supporting this claim. This fallacy plays into fears about immigration and election integrity.

5. Strawman Fallacy: Trump misrepresents the concept of election security by framing it as solely an issue of immigration and non-English speakers voting, oversimplifying the broader conversation about election integrity and fraud. This distorted view makes it easier for him to criticize without addressing the actual complexities of election reform or voter eligibility.

DAVID MUIR: I did watch all of these pieces of video. I didn’t detect the sarcasm, lost by a whisker, we didn’t quite make it, and we should just point out as clarification, and you know this, you and your allies, 60 cases in front of many judges. Many of them –

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No judge looked at it.

1. False Statement: Trump’s claim that "no judge looked at it" is factually incorrect. Numerous judges reviewed cases related to the 2020 election, including courts at the state and federal levels, and many of these cases were dismissed for lack of evidence or legal standing. This statement misrepresents the judicial process and the actual rulings on these cases.

2. Appeal to Ignorance: By asserting that "no judge looked at it," Trump implies that the lack of favorable outcomes in court is due to judges not examining the evidence, rather than acknowledging that the cases were dismissed after review. This fallacy shifts the focus from the merits of the cases to an assumption that the evidence was never properly considered, despite multiple legal reviews.

3. Red Herring: Trump deflects from the point Muir raised about the courts dismissing over 60 cases related to the 2020 election by making the unsubstantiated claim that "no judge looked at it." This tactic diverts attention from the fact that the legal system largely rejected the claims of election fraud and shifts the conversation to a different narrative about judicial inaction.

DAVID MUIR: And said there was no widespread fraud.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They said we didn’t have standing. That’s the other thing. They said we didn’t have standing. A technicality. Can you imagine a system where a person in an election doesn’t have standing, the President of the United States doesn’t have standing? That’s how we lost. If you look at the facts, and I’d love to have you — you’ll do a special on it. I’ll show you Georgia and I’ll show you Wisconsin and I’ll show you Pennsylvania and I’ll show you — we have so many facts and statistics. But you know what? That doesn’t matter. Because we have to solve the problem that we have right now. That’s old news. And the problem that we have right now is we have a nation in decline and they have put it into decline. We have a nation that is dying, David.

1. Red Herring: Trump diverts the conversation from the court rulings that dismissed the election fraud claims to other topics, such as the "nation in decline" and unrelated political issues. This shifts the focus away from the core topic (the 2020 election) to a broader and unrelated narrative about the state of the nation.

2. Appeal to Emotion: By stating, "We have a nation that is dying," Trump uses emotionally charged language to elicit fear and concern. This emotional appeal is designed to resonate with voters' anxieties about the state of the country, rather than addressing the factual accuracy of the election fraud claims.

3. Misleading Appeal to Technicality (Appeal to Injustice): Trump argues that the election fraud cases were dismissed on a "technicality" (lack of standing), implying that the judicial system failed him unjustly. However, standing is a fundamental principle of law, and the cases were reviewed and dismissed based on legal procedures. The dismissal for lack of standing is not merely a technicality but a reflection of the legal framework.

4. Shifting the Goalposts: Trump implies that even though the courts rejected the election fraud claims, the real issue is the current state of the nation. By shifting the discussion from election fraud to broader political concerns, he moves the goalposts of the debate, suggesting that the focus should no longer be on the 2020 election but on other issues.

5. False Cause: Trump implies that because he lost the 2020 election due to "technicalities," the nation is now in decline. This creates a false cause-and-effect relationship, suggesting that the country's current issues are directly tied to the alleged failures of the election process, without providing evidence for this causal link.

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, thank you. Vice President Harris, you heard the president there tonight. He said he didn’t say that he lost by a whisker. So he still believes he did not lose the election. That was won by President Biden and yourself. But I do want to ask you about something that’s come up in the last couple of days. This was a post from President Trump about this upcoming election just weeks away. He said, “When I win, those people who cheated,” and then he lists donors, voters, election officials, he says “Will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences.” One of your campaign’s top lawyers responded saying, “We won’t let Donald Trump intimidate us. We won’t let him suppress the vote.” Is that what you believe he’s trying to do here?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. So, let’s be clear about that. And clearly, he is having a very difficult time processing that. But we cannot afford to have a president of the United States who attempts as he did in the past to upend the will of the voters in a free and fair election. And I’m going to tell you that I have traveled the world as vice president of the United States. And world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump. I have talked with military leaders, some of whom worked with you. And they say you’re a disgrace. And when you then talk in this way in a presidential debate and deny what over and over again are court cases you have lost, because you did in fact lose that election, it leads one to believe that perhaps we do not have in the candidate to my right the temperament or the ability to not be confused about fact. That’s deeply troubling. And the American people deserve better.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris attacks Trump personally by saying he is having "a very difficult time processing" his election loss and claiming that world leaders and military figures find him "a disgrace." These are personal attacks on Trump's character rather than addressing his specific policies or positions. This fallacy distracts from the substance of the debate and focuses on discrediting Trump as a person.

2. Appeal to Popularity: Harris claims that "world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump," implying that because others disapprove of Trump, his actions and beliefs must be invalid. This is an appeal to popularity, suggesting that because a group of people (world leaders and military figures) find Trump to be a disgrace, her position is more legitimate by default.

3. Appeal to Authority (Implicit): Harris references military leaders and world leaders as a form of implied authority to bolster her argument, without providing any concrete evidence or specifics about who these leaders are or what they have said. This appeal relies on the perceived credibility of these figures rather than engaging directly with Trump’s arguments.

4. Strawman Fallacy: Harris simplifies Trump’s position by suggesting that his refusal to acknowledge the 2020 election results is purely a matter of being "confused about fact." While Trump’s statements are controversial, this framing oversimplifies his broader argument and avoids engaging with his claims in a more nuanced way.

DAVID MUIR: I’ll give you one minute to respond, Mr. President.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Let me just tell you about world leaders. Viktor Orban, one of the most respected men — they call him a strong man. He’s a tough person. Smart. Prime Minister of Hungary. They said why is the whole world blowing up? Three years ago it wasn’t. Why is it blowing up? He said because you need Trump back as president. They were afraid of him. China was afraid. And I don’t like to use the word afraid but I’m just quoting him. China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him. Look at what’s going on with North Korea, by the way. He said Russia was afraid of him. I ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Biden put it back on day one but he ended the XL pipeline. The XL pipeline in our country. He ended that. But he let the Russians build a pipeline going all over Europe and heading into Germany. The biggest pipeline in the world. Look, Viktor Orban said it. He said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president. But when this weak pathetic man that you saw at a debate just a few months ago that if he weren’t in that debate he’d be running instead of her, she got no votes, he got 14 million votes, what you did, you talk about a threat to democracy. He got 14 million votes and they threw him out of office. And you know what? I’ll give you a little secret. He hates her. He can’t stand her.

1. Appeal to Authority (False Authority):
Trump appeals to Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, as an authoritative figure on global affairs, suggesting that Orban’s praise of Trump validates his leadership. While Orban is a political leader, his views on Trump do not constitute objective evidence that Trump's leadership was globally effective. This is a form of false authority, as Orban’s opinion does not necessarily represent a factual assessment of global stability.

2. Appeal to Fear: Trump implies that foreign adversaries like China, North Korea, and Russia were "afraid" of him and that his presidency kept them in check. This plays on the fear of global instability, suggesting that without his leadership, the world is more dangerous. The argument relies on the audience's fear of these nations and global instability rather than providing concrete evidence of how his policies directly led to global peace.

3. Red Herring: Rather than directly addressing the criticisms Harris made about his temperament and refusal to acknowledge the 2020 election loss, Trump shifts the conversation to topics like pipelines (Nord Stream 2 and the XL pipeline) and foreign policy. This distracts from the original issue of his leadership and accountability for the election.

4. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Joe Biden personally, calling him a "weak pathetic man," and claims that Biden "hates" Harris. These personal insults distract from the discussion of policy and leadership, aiming to discredit his opponents on a personal level rather than addressing substantive issues.

5. False Cause (Post Hoc): Trump implies that the global issues occurring now (e.g., tensions with North Korea, Russia, etc.) are a direct result of his no longer being president. This assumes a causal relationship without evidence that his absence is directly responsible for these issues, oversimplifying complex global events.

6. Strawman Fallacy: Trump creates a simplified and exaggerated version of Biden's and Harris’s positions, particularly by claiming that Biden’s actions "threw him out of office" and allowed Harris to become vice president despite "getting no votes." This misrepresents the electoral process and the role of both individuals in the election, making it easier to criticize them.

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President –

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP: But he had 14 million votes. They threw them out. She got zero votes. And when she ran, she was the first one to leave because she failed. And now she’s running. I don’t understand it but I’m okay with it – because I think we’re going to do pretty well.

1. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Kamala Harris by stating she "got zero votes" and was "the first one to leave" the primary race, attempting to discredit her based on her performance in the 2020 Democratic primaries. This personal attack on her electoral performance distracts from substantive policy discussions and attempts to undermine her credibility without addressing her arguments or qualifications.

2. False Equivalence: Trump implies that because Harris performed poorly in the primaries, her position as vice president is somehow invalid or undeserved. This comparison between primary performance and vice-presidential candidacy oversimplifies the political process and ignores the role of the Electoral College, the party nomination system, and the actual electoral results.

3. Appeal to Popularity (Implied): By emphasizing that Joe Biden received "14 million votes" and contrasting it with Harris’s lack of primary success, Trump implies that the number of votes is the sole determinant of a candidate’s legitimacy. This overlooks the complexities of the U.S. political system, where vice presidents are chosen through different mechanisms than direct voting in primaries.

4. Red Herring: Rather than addressing substantive issues about policy or leadership, Trump diverts attention to Harris’s past primary performance. This shifts the conversation away from the broader debate topics and focuses on an unrelated aspect of her candidacy that has no bearing on her qualifications as vice president.

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, your time is up. We've got a lot more to get to.

LINSEY DAVIS: Turning now to the Israel-Hamas war and the hostages who are still being held, Americans among them. Vice President Harris, in December you said, "Israel has a right to defend itself" but you added, "It matters how." Saying international humanitarian law must be respected, Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians. You said that nine months ago. Now an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead. Nearly 100 hostages remain. Just last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there's not a deal in the making. President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. How would you do it?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, let's understand how we got here. On Oct. 7, Hamas, a terrorist organization, slaughtered 1,200 Israelis. Many of them young people who were simply attending a concert. Women were horribly raped. And so absolutely, I said then, I say now, Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children, mothers. What we know is that this war must end. It must when, end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out. And so we will continue to work around the clock on that. Work around the clock also understanding that we must chart a course for a two-state solution. And in that solution, there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel and in equal measure for the Palestinians. But the one thing I will assure you always, I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel. But we must have a two-state solution where we can rebuild Gaza, where the Palestinians have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.

1. Appeal to Emotion: Harris begins by recounting the tragic events of October 7, where 1,200 Israelis were killed and women were raped by Hamas, a terrorist organization. While these are factually accurate and horrific events, the vivid imagery is used to evoke strong emotional reactions. This emotional appeal shifts focus from the policy solutions being discussed toward the shock and horror of the situation, without providing a deeper analysis of the complexities involved in achieving peace.

2. False Dilemma: Harris presents the issue as a binary choice between allowing Israel to defend itself and achieving peace through a two-state solution. While both are important aspects of the conflict, this framing oversimplifies the issue by not addressing other potential diplomatic avenues or the broader geopolitical factors, such as the role of other nations or organizations like the United Nations in the peace process.

3. Hasty Generalization: By stating that "the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out," Harris oversimplifies a complex and long-standing conflict by suggesting that a cease-fire and release of hostages are the clear and immediate solution. While these are important goals, they do not address the deeper structural, historical, and political issues that contribute to the ongoing conflict.

4. Slippery Slope: Harris implies that failure to achieve a cease-fire and two-state solution will perpetuate the suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis. While this may be true, it assumes a slippery slope in which continuing violence is the only possible outcome without these specific solutions, without considering alternative peace-building measures or negotiations that could also play a role.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, how would you negotiate with Netanyahu and also Hamas in order to get the hostages out and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians in Gaza?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If I were president it would have never started. If I were president Russia would have never, ever -- I know Putin very well. He would have never -- and there was no threat of it either, by the way, for four years. Have gone into Ukraine and killed millions of people when you add it up. Far worse than people understand what's going on over there. But when she mentions about Israel all of a sudden -- she hates Israel. She wouldn't even meet with Netanyahu when he went to Congress to make a very important speech. She refused to be there because she was at a sorority party of hers. She wanted to go to the sorority party. She hates Israel. If she's president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years from now. And I've been pretty good at predictions. And I hope I'm wrong about that one. She hates Israel. At the same time in her own way she hates the Arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up, Arabs, Jewish people, Israel. Israel will be gone. It would have never happened. Iran was broke under Donald Trump. Now Iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that I had. Iran had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the 28 different spheres of terror. And they are spheres of terror. Horrible terror. They had no money. It was a big story, and you know it. You covered it. Very well, actually. They had no money for terror. They were broke. Now they're a rich nation. And now what they're doing is spreading that money around. Look at what's happening with the Houthis and Yemen. Look at what's going on in the Middle East. This would have never happened. I will get that settled and fast. And I'll get the war with Ukraine and Russia ended. If I'm President-Elect, I'll get it done before even becoming president.

1. Hypothetical Fallacy (Counterfactual): Trump claims that if he were president, the Israel-Hamas conflict and Russia's invasion of Ukraine "would have never started." This is a counterfactual argument, relying on speculation about what could have happened under different circumstances. Since these events did not occur during his presidency, there's no way to definitively prove or disprove this claim, making it speculative and lacking a factual basis.

2. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Harris personally by saying "she hates Israel" and accuses her of skipping Netanyahu's speech to attend a sorority party. These personal attacks do not address the substantive issues regarding foreign policy or her stance on Israel and distract from the question of how he would handle negotiations.

3. Appeal to Fear: Trump asserts that if Harris becomes president, "Israel will not exist within two years" and that the whole region, including Arabs and Jews, "is going to get blown up." This is an appeal to fear, using extreme hypothetical outcomes to provoke anxiety rather than presenting evidence-based arguments about Harris's policies or leadership.

4. Slippery Slope: Trump suggests that Harris’s presidency will lead to the destruction of Israel and widespread devastation in the Middle East, without providing a logical or evidence-based connection between her policies and such extreme outcomes. This exaggerates the potential consequences of her leadership without sufficient evidence to support the claim.

5. Red Herring: Instead of addressing the core question about how he would negotiate to free hostages and prevent civilian deaths, Trump diverts the conversation to unrelated issues like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s financial situation, and his previous sanctions on Iran. This distracts from the specific question about negotiating with Hamas and Netanyahu.

6. False Cause (Post Hoc): Trump claims that the release of sanctions on Iran directly led to the current conflicts in the Middle East, implying that because Iran has more money, they are responsible for funding terror and destabilizing the region. While Iran’s involvement in proxy conflicts is a known issue, the connection between sanctions relief and these specific events is oversimplified.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, he says you hate Israel.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: That's absolutely not true. I have my entire career and life supported Israel and the Israeli people. He knows that. He's trying to again divide and distract from the reality, which is it is very well known that Donald Trump is weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy. It is well known that he admires dictators, wants to be a dictator on day one according to himself. It is well known that he said of Putin that he can do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine. It is well known when that he said when Russia went into Ukraine it was brilliant. It is well known he exchanged love letters with Kim Jong un. And it is absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because they're so clear, they can manipulate you with flattery and favors. And that is why so many military leaders who you have worked with have told me you are a disgrace. That is why we understand that we have to have a president who is not consistently weak and wrong on national security including the importance of upholding and respecting in highest regard our military.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris attacks Trump’s character by calling him "weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy" and suggesting that he "admires dictators" and is easily "manipulated with flattery." These statements target Trump's personal attributes rather than addressing the specific claims about her stance on Israel or engaging with his foreign policy record in a substantive way.

2. Strawman Fallacy: Harris misrepresents Trump's foreign policy by focusing on extreme examples, such as his "love letters" with Kim Jong Un and his remarks about Putin. While Trump’s rhetoric regarding these leaders has been controversial, Harris simplifies his foreign policy actions to make them seem more egregious and easily dismissible, without addressing the broader context or the outcomes of those relationships.

3. Appeal to Authority: Harris references "military leaders" who allegedly told her that Trump is "a disgrace." While this claim is meant to bolster her argument by appealing to authority, it lacks specific names or instances, making it a vague reference to authority without direct evidence. This appeal relies on the perceived credibility of these unnamed military figures to support her point.

4. Red Herring: Rather than directly addressing Trump’s claim that she "hates Israel," Harris shifts the conversation to Trump’s alleged admiration for dictators and his foreign policy blunders. This diverts the discussion from the topic of her stance on Israel to a broader critique of Trump’s leadership style and foreign policy approach.

5. Appeal to Popularity: Harris implies that it is "well known" that Trump is weak on national security and admired by dictators. By repeating "it is well known," she appeals to the audience’s preconceptions about Trump without providing specific evidence to substantiate each claim. This tactic relies on what people believe to be true rather than presenting concrete examples.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, thank you.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They're the ones -- and she's the one that caused it, that's weak on national security by allowing every nation last month for the year, 168 different countries sending people into our country. Their crime rates are way down. Putin endorsed her last week. Said I hope she wins. And I think he meant it. Because what he's gotten away with is absolutely incredible. It wouldn't have happened with me. The leaders of other countries think that they're weak and incompetent. And they are. They're grossly incompetent. And I just ask one question. Why does Biden go in and kill the Keystone pipeline and approve the single biggest deal that Russia's ever made, Nordstream 2, the biggest pipeline anywhere in the world going to Germany and all over Europe? Because they're weak and they're ineffective. And Biden, by the way --

1. Red Herring:
Trump deflects from the core issue of national security by focusing on immigration and the approval of the Keystone and Nordstream 2 pipelines. This distracts from the original conversation about Harris's stance on Israel and national security, shifting the topic to unrelated policy issues.

2. Appeal to Authority (False Authority):
Trump claims that "Putin endorsed her last week," implying that this statement from Putin validates his criticism of Harris. However, citing Putin—an authoritarian figure—as an authority on American politics does not strengthen the argument and instead relies on a false or irrelevant authority to make a point.

3. Ad Hominem:
Trump repeatedly calls Harris and her administration "weak" and "incompetent," attacking their character rather than engaging with their policies. This personal attack is used to undermine Harris’s and Biden’s credibility without providing specific evidence of their alleged failures in national security.

4. False Cause (Post Hoc):
Trump implies that the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline and approval of Nordstream 2 are directly linked to Biden’s alleged weakness. This simplification assumes a direct cause-and-effect relationship between these actions and the broader argument of national security without addressing the complexities of these energy policies and their geopolitical contexts.

5. Appeal to Fear:
By stating that "what [Putin has] gotten away with is absolutely incredible" and that "it wouldn’t have happened with me," Trump stokes fear of foreign leaders taking advantage of the current administration. This appeal to fear is used to suggest that under Harris and Biden, the U.S. is vulnerable, without providing concrete evidence of specific failures in national security.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump...

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Gets paid a lot of money --

1. Ad Hominem: Trump implies that Biden (or possibly Harris, depending on the context) "gets paid a lot of money," attempting to undermine their credibility by attacking their financial situation rather than addressing their policies or actions. This personal attack is used to cast doubt on their integrity without providing any evidence or connection to the current discussion.

2. Red Herring: By shifting the conversation to financial matters, Trump deflects from the current debate topic (national security, Israel, or other issues) and introduces an unrelated accusation. This distracts from the main issue being discussed and diverts attention to an unsubstantiated claim about personal finances.

LINSEY DAVIS: Thank you. We have a lot of issues to get to.

DAVID MUIR: We'll be right back with much more of this historic ABC News presidential debate from the National Constitution Center right here in Philadelphia. Back in a moment.

DAVID MUIR: And I want to turn to the war in Ukraine. We're now 2 1/2 years into this conflict. Mr. President, it has been the position of the Biden administration that we must defend Ukraine from Russia, from Vladimir Putin, to defend their sovereignty, their democracy, that it's in America's best interest to do so, arguing that if Putin wins he may be emboldened to move even further into other countries. You have said you would solve this war in 24 hours. You said so just before the break tonight. How exactly would you do that? And I want to ask you a very simple question tonight. Do you want Ukraine to win this war?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I want the war to stop. I want to save lives that are being uselessly -- people being killed by the millions. It's the millions. It's so much worse than the numbers that you're getting, which are fake numbers. Look, we're in for 250 billion or more because they don't ask Europe, which is a much bigger beneficiary to getting this thing done than we are. They're in for $150 billion less because Biden and you don't have the courage to ask Europe like I did with NATO. They paid billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars when I said either you pay up or we're not going to protect you anymore. So that may be one of the reasons they don't like me as much as they like weak people. But you take a look at what's happening. We're in for 250 to 275 billion. They're into 100 to 150. They should be forced to equalize. With that being said, I want to get the war settled. I know Zelenskyy very well and I know Putin very well. I have a good relationship. And they respect your president. Okay? They respect me. They don't respect Biden. How would you respect him? Why? For what reason? He hasn't even made a phone call in two years to Putin. Hasn't spoken to anybody. They don't even try and get it. That is a war that's dying to be settled. I will get it settled before I even become president. If I win, when I'm President-Elect, and what I'll do is I'll speak to one, I'll speak to the other, I'll get them together. That war would have never happened. And in fact when I saw Putin after I left, unfortunately left because our country has gone to hell, but after I left when I saw him building up soldiers, he did it after I left, I said oh, he must be negotiating. It must be a good strong point of negotiation. Well, it wasn't because Biden had no idea how to talk to him. He had no idea how to stop it. And now you have millions of people dead and it's only getting worse and it could lead to World War 3. Don't kid yourself, David. We're playing with World War 3. And we have a president that we don't even know if he's -- where is our president? We don't even know if he's a president.

1. Appeal to Fear: Trump warns that the ongoing war "could lead to World War 3," invoking a worst-case scenario without providing evidence that such an escalation is imminent. This appeal to fear is designed to provoke anxiety about the Biden administration's handling of the conflict, without offering a substantive argument for why this outcome is inevitable.

2. Hasty Generalization: Trump claims "millions of people" have died in the Ukraine conflict, which is a gross exaggeration based on the available data. This overstatement generalizes the severity of the war’s death toll without providing accurate figures, leading to a distorted understanding of the conflict’s actual human cost.

3. False Cause: Trump implies that the war in Ukraine would not have happened if he were still president, suggesting that his leadership would have prevented the conflict. This is a form of post hoc fallacy, as it assumes a direct causal relationship between his absence from office and the start of the war, without evidence that his continued presidency would have definitively prevented Putin's actions.

4. Red Herring: Trump shifts the conversation from Ukraine to Europe’s financial contributions to NATO, accusing the Biden administration of failing to pressure Europe to contribute more. This distracts from the original question of how he would solve the war in Ukraine and deflects attention to NATO and U.S. defense spending.

5. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Biden personally, claiming that world leaders "don’t respect him" and rhetorically asking, "Why? For what reason?" This personal attack on Biden’s leadership avoids addressing the specific policies in place and focuses instead on discrediting Biden’s character and reputation without providing a substantive critique of his actions.

6. False Dilemma: Trump presents the situation as though the only choices are either Biden's handling of the conflict or Trump’s promise to resolve it immediately. This false dichotomy oversimplifies the complexities of the Ukraine war and the numerous diplomatic efforts that could be pursued beyond Trump’s or Biden’s strategies.

DAVID MUIR: And just to clarify here.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They threw him out of a campaign like a dog. We don't even know, is he our president? But we have a president...

1. Ad Hominem: Trump refers to Biden as having been "thrown out of a campaign like a dog," using a personal attack to undermine Biden’s legitimacy without addressing any policies or specific actions. This insult diverts attention from the substance of the debate and focuses on discrediting Biden’s character.

2. Red Herring: Rather than engaging with the current discussion on Ukraine, Trump shifts the focus to Biden’s campaign and legitimacy, saying, "We don't even know, is he our president?" This statement distracts from the original question and attempts to cast doubt on Biden’s authority without addressing the issue at hand.

3. Appeal to Ignorance: By asking, "Is he our president?" Trump implies that there is uncertainty or doubt about Biden's presidency, despite the fact that Biden was duly elected and is recognized as president. This appeal to ignorance attempts to sow doubt where there is no real ambiguity.

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President,

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: ...that doesn't know he's alive.

1. Ad Hominem: Trump continues to attack Biden personally by saying he "doesn't know he's alive," implying cognitive incompetence without providing any evidence to substantiate the claim. This personal attack does not engage with Biden's policies or actions and instead aims to discredit him by questioning his mental faculties.

2. Appeal to Ridicule: By making the statement that Biden "doesn't know he's alive," Trump uses ridicule to mock Biden rather than offering a substantive critique of his leadership or decisions. This rhetorical device seeks to diminish Biden's credibility through derision rather than through factual argumentation.

3. Red Herring: This statement also serves as a red herring by diverting the conversation away from the topic at hand (Ukraine, national security, or foreign policy) and focusing on an unfounded critique of Biden's mental state. It shifts attention from the actual issues being discussed.

DAVID MUIR: Your time is up. Just to clarify the question, do you believe it's in the U.S. best interests for Ukraine to win this war? Yes or no?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think it's in the U.S. best interest to get this war finished and just get it done. All right. Negotiate a deal. Because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed.

1. Evasion (Avoiding the Question): Trump avoids directly answering the "yes or no" question about whether it is in the U.S. best interest for Ukraine to win the war. Instead, he pivots to the broader goal of ending the war through negotiation. While this may be a valid position, it evades the specific question being asked, which was about supporting Ukraine's victory.

2. False Dichotomy: By suggesting that the only way to end the war is through negotiation, Trump implies that there are no other viable solutions, such as continued support for Ukraine or diplomatic pressure on Russia. This false dichotomy oversimplifies the complex range of strategies that could be employed to address the conflict.

3. Appeal to Emotion: Trump emphasizes the need to "stop all of these human lives from being destroyed," appealing to the emotional weight of the war's casualties. While this is a valid concern, the emotional appeal serves to redirect the conversation away from the question of U.S. strategic interests and instead focuses on the tragic human toll of the conflict.

DAVID MUIR: I want to take this to Vice President Harris. I want to get your thoughts on support for Ukraine in this moment. But also as commander in chief if elected how would you deal with Vladimir Putin and would it be any different from what we're seeing from President Biden?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, first of all, it's important to remind the former president you're not running against Joe Biden, you're running against me. I believe the reason that Donald Trump says that this war would be over within 24 hours is because he would just give it up. And that's not who we are as Americans. Let's understand what happened here. I actually met with Zelenskyy a few days before Russia invaded, tried through force to change territorial boundaries to defy one of the most important international rules and norms, which is the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I met with President Zelenskyy. I shared with him American intelligence about how he could defend himself. Days later I went to NATO's eastern flank, to Poland and Romania. And through the work that I and others did we brought 50 countries together to support Ukraine in its righteous defense. And because of our support, because of the air defense, the ammunition, the artillery, the javelins, the Abrams tanks that we have provided, Ukraine stands as an independent and free country. If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now. And understand what that would mean. Because Putin's agenda is not just about Ukraine. Understand why the European allies and our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president and that we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO. And what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to fight for their Independence. Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe. Starting with Poland. And why don't you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris suggests that Trump would "just give it up" and implies that he has a personal friendship with Vladimir Putin, calling Putin a dictator "who would eat you for lunch." This personal attack on Trump’s relationship with Putin does not engage directly with Trump’s policy ideas or proposals but instead seeks to discredit him by questioning his loyalty and integrity.

2. Strawman Fallacy: Harris oversimplifies Trump’s claim that the war would end in 24 hours, interpreting it to mean that he would "just give it up," without providing evidence that Trump would surrender Ukraine to Russia. This strawman misrepresents Trump’s position, making it easier to attack.

3. Appeal to Fear: Harris suggests that if Trump were president, "Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now" and would have his "eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland." This appeal to fear invokes a worst-case scenario without offering concrete evidence that this outcome would be inevitable under Trump’s leadership. It is designed to provoke anxiety rather than engage with Trump’s actual foreign policy approach.

4. Appeal to Popularity: By claiming that "our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president," Harris appeals to the opinions of NATO allies as a validation of Biden’s and her leadership. This appeal to popularity suggests that because NATO allies support their policies, those policies must be correct, without delving into the details of those policies or considering any criticism.

5. False Dilemma: Harris frames the issue as though the only two options are either her approach, which preserves Ukrainian independence, or Trump’s approach, which supposedly results in Putin taking over Kyiv. This false dilemma oversimplifies the range of possible outcomes and strategies for handling the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris Thank you. We heard from both of you on Ukraine tonight. Afghanistan came up in the last hour -- I wanted her to respond to something you said earlier.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have to respond.

1. Red Herring: Trump immediately interrupts to demand a response, without allowing the flow of the debate to continue as directed by the moderator. This serves as a distraction from the current conversation, which was focusing on Afghanistan. By interrupting, he diverts attention away from the planned topic and pulls the discussion back to himself.

2. Ad Hominem (Implied): By stating, "I have to respond," Trump implies that whatever was said about him (or his policies) earlier requires immediate correction or rebuttal. Without yet providing specific arguments, this interruption sets the stage for potential personal defense without addressing the original substance of the question.

3. Appeal to Authority (Implied): The statement implies that Trump believes his response is necessary or authoritative on the matter, even before hearing the question in full or allowing the moderator to guide the discussion. This sets up an expectation that his viewpoint must take precedence.

DAVID MUIR: Please I'll give you a minute here.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Putin would be sitting in Moscow and he wouldn't have lost 300,000 men and women. But he would have been sitting in Moscow

1. Non Sequitur: Trump's statement that "Putin would be sitting in Moscow and he wouldn't have lost 300,000 men and women" does not logically follow from the ongoing conversation about Afghanistan or Ukraine. The connection between the topics is unclear, and the statement doesn't address the question directly. This non sequitur fails to offer a cohesive argument related to the situation being discussed.

2. False Cause: Trump implies that if he were president, Putin would not have lost 300,000 men and women, suggesting that this loss of life is directly tied to Biden's leadership or the current administration's policies. This is a false cause fallacy, as there is no direct evidence to support the claim that Trump’s leadership would have prevented these losses, especially given the complexities of the war in Ukraine.

3. Red Herring: Rather than addressing the issues of Afghanistan or Ukraine directly, Trump pivots to a hypothetical situation involving Putin's losses and where he would "be sitting," diverting attention away from the original question and introducing an unrelated point to the discussion.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: (inaudible)

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Quiet, please. He would have been sitting in Moscow much happier than he is right now. But eventually, you know, he's got a thing that other people don't have. He's got nuclear weapons. They don't ever talk about that. He's got nuclear weapons. Nobody ever thinks about that. And eventually uh maybe he'll use them. Maybe he hasn't been that threatening. But he does have that. Something we don't even like to talk about. Nobody likes to talk about it. But just so you understand, they sent her to negotiate peace before this war started. Three days later he went in and he started the war because everything they said was weak and stupid. They said the wrong things. That war should have never started. She was the emissary. They sent her in to negotiate with Zelenskyy and Putin. And she did and the war started three days later.

1. Appeal to Fear: Trump emphasizes that "Putin has nuclear weapons" and repeatedly warns that "maybe he'll use them." This is an appeal to fear, using the threat of nuclear war to provoke anxiety about the current situation without offering a constructive or evidence-based solution. The fear of nuclear escalation is invoked without substantiating why this is immediately relevant or likely in the current context.

2. Red Herring: Trump introduces the topic of nuclear weapons, which diverts the conversation away from the issue of the Ukraine conflict and peace negotiations. By focusing on the general threat of nuclear weapons, he shifts attention from the specific circumstances of Harris’s alleged role in negotiations, avoiding addressing whether her actions directly led to the war.

3. Post Hoc Fallacy: Trump implies that because Harris was sent to negotiate before the war and the war started three days later, her negotiation must have caused the war. This is a post hoc fallacy, as it assumes that her actions were the direct cause of the conflict without providing any evidence to support the claim that her negotiation efforts were ineffective or responsible for Putin's invasion.

4. Ad Hominem: Trump describes Harris’s efforts as "weak and stupid," attacking her personally without explaining why her negotiation strategy was ineffective. This ad hominem attack shifts the focus from the substance of her actions to disparaging her capabilities without engaging with the details of what was said or done during the negotiations.

DAVID MUIR: Vice president...

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And that's the kind of talent we have with her. She's worse than Biden. In my opinion, I think he's the worst president in the history of our country. She goes down as the worst vice president in the history of our country. But let me tell you something. She is a horrible negotiator. They sent her in to negotiate. As soon as they left Putin did the invasion.

1. Ad Hominem: Trump personally attacks both Biden and Harris, calling Biden "the worst president in the history of our country" and Harris "the worst vice president." These personal insults do not engage with any specific policies or actions and serve only to discredit them without providing any evidence or reasoning.

2. Post Hoc Fallacy: Trump repeats the claim that because Harris was sent to negotiate and the invasion happened shortly after, her negotiation must have caused the invasion. This post hoc reasoning assumes a causal relationship between Harris’s involvement and Putin’s decision to invade, without any evidence that her actions directly led to the invasion.

3. Strawman Fallacy: By stating that Harris is a "horrible negotiator" and implying that her negotiation directly led to the invasion, Trump misrepresents her role in the situation, simplifying the complexities of international diplomacy. This strawman fallacy makes it easier for him to criticize her, without addressing the full context of the negotiations or other factors leading to the invasion.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. You did bring up something, you said she went to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Vice President Harris, have you ever met Vladimir Putin, can you clarify tonight?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Yet again, I said it at the beginning of this debate, you're going to hear a bunch of lies coming from this fella. And that is another one. When I went to meet with President Zelenskyy, I've now met with him over five times. The reality is, it has been about standing as America always should, as a leader upholding international rules and norms. As a leader who shows strength, understanding that the alliances we have around the world are dependent on our ability to look out for our friends and not favor our enemies because you adore strongmen instead of caring about democracy. And that is very much what is at stake here. The President of the United States is commander-in-chief. And the American people have a right to rely on a president who understands the significance of America's role and responsibility in terms of ensuring that there is stability and ensuring we stand up for our principles and not sell them for the benefit of personal flattery.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris begins her response by calling Trump a "fella" and accusing him of lying, referring to his statements as "a bunch of lies." While she may be refuting Trump's claims, this is an ad hominem attack, as it focuses on discrediting his character and trustworthiness without engaging in detail with the specific falsehoods or providing substantial evidence against them.

2. Red Herring: Harris shifts from the specific question of whether she has ever met Vladimir Putin to a broader discussion of America’s role in the world, alliances, and principles. This red herring distracts from the original point of the conversation, which was to clarify the claim that she negotiated with Putin, and instead emphasizes her stance on international diplomacy and leadership without directly addressing the question.

3. Strawman Fallacy: Harris implies that Trump "adores strongmen" and favors autocrats over democracies. While this may be a critique of Trump’s foreign policy, it simplifies and exaggerates his position without providing specific examples. This strawman fallacy misrepresents Trump’s stance, making it easier to attack.

DAVID MUIR: We've talked about Ukraine and Vladimir Putin. I do want to talk about Afghanistan. It came up in the first hour of this debate.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: David, one thing.

1. Red Herring: By interrupting, Trump attempts to divert the conversation away from the planned topic of Afghanistan, potentially steering the debate back to a different topic or personal defense. This red herring deflects attention from the issue Muir is introducing, namely Afghanistan, and risks sidetracking the conversation.

2. Appeal to Authority (Implied): Trump's insistence on interjecting with "one thing" suggests that his point is urgent or critical to the discussion, even though the moderator was moving to a different topic. This implied appeal to authority assumes that Trump’s point must be heard before proceeding, even if it’s unrelated to the current topic.

DAVID MUIR: I want to move on to Afghanistan.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Secretary General Stoltenberg said Trump did the most amazing thing I've ever seen, he got these countries, the 28 countries at the time, to pay up. He said I've never seen -- he's the head of NATO. He said I've never seen -- for years we were paying almost all of NATO. We were being ripped off by European nations both on trade and on NATO. I got them to pay up by saying one of the statements you made before, if you don't pay we're not going to protect you.

1. Red Herring: Trump deflects from the original topic of Afghanistan, instead focusing on his achievements with NATO. The conversation was meant to shift to Afghanistan, but Trump redirects it to NATO payments and his negotiations with European nations, which is unrelated to the current topic.

2. Appeal to Authority: Trump references NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, implying that Stoltenberg’s praise of his efforts ("the most amazing thing I've ever seen") serves as validation for his actions. This appeal to authority relies on Stoltenberg’s perceived authority to bolster Trump’s claim about his handling of NATO, rather than providing evidence for the effectiveness of his policies.

3. False Cause: Trump implies that NATO nations only paid up because he threatened to stop protecting them. This false cause fallacy oversimplifies the complex nature of international negotiations and defense alliances, suggesting that his ultimatum was the sole factor that led to increased payments.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump--

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Otherwise we would've never gotten it. He said it was one of the most incredible jobs that he's ever seen done.

1. Appeal to Authority: Trump continues to rely on NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg’s praise, asserting that "it was one of the most incredible jobs" to validate his actions. This appeal to authority uses Stoltenberg’s opinion as the primary justification for his achievements, rather than providing concrete evidence of the effectiveness of his policies.

2. Repetition (Argumentum ad Nauseam): Trump repeats the claim that Stoltenberg praised him, reinforcing the point without adding new information or addressing the topic of Afghanistan. This is a form of repetition, where a point is restated multiple times in the hope that it will be accepted as true without further argument or evidence.

3. Red Herring: Trump continues to divert the conversation from Afghanistan to NATO payments and Stoltenberg’s praise, which are unrelated to the current topic. This red herring distracts from the issue that David Muir is attempting to introduce, preventing the debate from progressing to the intended subject.

DAVID MUIR: Thank you. I want to turn to Afghanistan. We witnessed a poignant moment today on Capitol Hill honoring the soldiers who died in the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I do want to ask the vice president, do you believe you bear any responsibility in the way that withdrawal played out?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America's taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. But let's understand how we got to where we are. Donald Trump when he was president negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine. He calls himself a dealmaker. Even his national security adviser said it was a weak, terrible deal. And here's how it went down. He bypassed the Afghan government. He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban. The negotiation involved the Taliban getting 5,000 terrorists, Taliban terrorists released.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris attacks Trump personally by calling his deal with the Taliban "one of the weakest deals you can imagine" and implying that his claim of being a "dealmaker" is false. This is an ad hominem attack, focusing on discrediting Trump’s negotiation skills rather than engaging with the specifics of the deal itself.

2. Appeal to Authority: Harris appeals to the authority of Trump’s former national security adviser, stating that even he called the deal "a weak, terrible deal." This appeal to authority relies on the opinion of a high-ranking official to validate her criticism of Trump's negotiations, rather than providing detailed reasoning or evidence for why the deal was flawed.

3. Red Herring: Harris shifts the focus from the question of whether she bears responsibility for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to a critique of Trump’s negotiation with the Taliban. This red herring deflects from addressing her and Biden's role in the withdrawal, instead concentrating on a prior event under Trump’s administration.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: And get this -- no, get this. And the president at the time invited the Taliban to Camp David. A place of storied significance for us as Americans, a place where we honor the importance of American diplomacy, where we invite and receive respected world leaders. And this former president as president invited them to Camp David because he does not again appreciate the role and responsibility of the President of the United States to be commander in chief with a level of respect. And this gets back to the point of how he has consistently disparaged and demeaned members of our military, fallen soldiers, and the work that we must do to uphold the strength and the respect of the United States of America around the world.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris attacks Trump’s character and judgment by criticizing his decision to invite the Taliban to Camp David, stating that he "does not appreciate the role and responsibility of the President" and has "consistently disparaged and demeaned members of our military." This ad hominem fallacy shifts the focus from discussing the merits or consequences of Trump's actions to attacking his integrity and fitness for leadership.

2. Appeal to Emotion: Harris invokes the "storied significance" of Camp David and frames Trump’s decision as a disrespect to American values and traditions. This appeal to emotion is meant to provoke feelings of outrage or disappointment, rather than presenting a factual argument about why the invitation was a poor strategic decision.

3. Red Herring: Harris diverts the conversation from the actual content of Trump’s negotiations with the Taliban to a symbolic critique of his choice of location for a meeting. This red herring distracts from the core issue of U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan by focusing on the setting (Camp David) rather than the policies or outcomes of the negotiation.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump, your response to her saying that you began the negotiations with the Taliban.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, thank you. So if you take a look at that period of time, the Taliban was killing our soldiers, a lot of them, with snipers. And I got involved with the Taliban because the Taliban was doing the killing. That's the fighting force within Afghanistan. They don't bother doing that because you know, they deal with the wrong people all the time. But I got involved. And Abdul is the head of the Taliban. He is still the head of the Taliban. And I told Abdul don't do it anymore, you do it anymore you're going to have problems. And he said why do you send me a picture of my house? I said you're going to have to figure that out, Abdul. And for 18 months we had nobody killed. We did have an agreement negotiated by Mike Pompeo. It was a very good agreement. The reason it was good, it was -- we were getting out. We would have been out faster than them, but we wouldn't have lost the soldiers. We wouldn't have left many Americans behind. And we wouldn't have left -- we wouldn't have left $85 billion worth of brand new beautiful military equipment behind. And just to finish, they blew it. The agreement said you have to do this, this, this, this, this, and they didn't do it. They didn't do it. The agreement was, was terminated by us because they didn't do what they were supposed to do.

1. Appeal to Fear: Trump recounts a conversation with the Taliban leader, Abdul, where he allegedly threatened him by sending a picture of his house. This is an appeal to fear, using intimidation as a central strategy in his negotiations. While this story is intended to emphasize strength, it leans heavily on fear and threat as a method of achieving compliance, which detracts from a substantive discussion of diplomatic strategies.

2. False Cause: Trump claims that "for 18 months we had nobody killed" as a direct result of his conversation with Abdul and his negotiations. This false cause fallacy assumes that the absence of U.S. military casualties was solely due to his personal involvement and threats, without considering other factors that might have contributed to the temporary lull in violence.

3. Red Herring: Rather than directly addressing the broader question of his responsibility in negotiating with the Taliban, Trump diverts the conversation to the equipment left behind in Afghanistan and the Americans left behind. This red herring moves the focus away from the specifics of the negotiations and shifts to criticizing the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal.

4. Hasty Generalization: Trump makes the claim that "they blew it" without providing detailed evidence on how the Taliban violated the agreement, instead making broad assertions that the Biden administration failed to execute the deal properly. This is a hasty generalization because it does not include sufficient specifics to support the broad conclusion that the agreement was terminated for these reasons.

DAVID MUIR: I want to move on.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And these people did the worst withdrawal and in my opinion the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country. And by the way, that's why Russia attacked Ukraine. Because they saw how incompetent she and her boss are.

1. Hasty Generalization: Trump claims that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was "the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country." This is a hasty generalization because it exaggerates the impact of the withdrawal without offering a nuanced comparison to other significant events in U.S. history.

2. Post Hoc Fallacy: Trump argues that Russia attacked Ukraine because they "saw how incompetent she and her boss are," implying that the Afghanistan withdrawal directly caused Russia's decision to invade Ukraine. This is a post hoc fallacy, as it assumes a direct cause-and-effect relationship between these two events without providing evidence to support such a connection.

3. Ad Hominem: Trump personally attacks Harris and Biden, calling them "incompetent" and blaming them for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This ad hominem attack shifts the focus from analyzing foreign policy decisions to undermining their competence and leadership without substantive evidence.

DAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. I want to move on now to race and politics in this country. Mr. President, you recently said of Vice President Harris, "I didn't know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black." I want to ask a bigger-picture question here tonight. Why do you believe it's appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't. And I don't care. I don't care what she is. I don't care. You make a big deal out of something. I couldn't care less. Whatever she wants to be is okay with me.

1. Red Herring: Trump immediately deflects from the specific issue of his past remarks on Harris's racial identity, claiming that he "doesn't care" about her race and that it's being made into a "big deal." This is a red herring, as it shifts the focus away from the question of why he made the comment in the first place, avoiding accountability for his previous statements.

2. Strawman Fallacy: By stating "I don't care what she is" and implying that others are making a bigger deal out of the issue, Trump misrepresents the core of the question, which is about his commentary on Harris’s racial identity, not her identity itself. This strawman fallacy simplifies the issue into one of whether race matters to him, rather than addressing the appropriateness of his past statements.

3. Appeal to Emotion (Dismissive): Trump’s dismissive tone ("I couldn't care less") appeals to emotion by trying to downplay the significance of the issue. This appeal to emotion seeks to portray him as unconcerned with race, suggesting that the topic isn’t worth discussing, rather than engaging with the substance of the criticism regarding his past comments.

DAVID MUIR: But those were your words. So, I'm asking --

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. All I can say is I read where she was not Black, that she put out. And, I'll say that. And then I read that she was black. And that's okay. Either one was okay with me. That's up to her. That's up to her.

1. Ambiguity (Equivocation): Trump’s response, “I read where she was not Black... and then I read that she was Black,” plays on the ambiguity of race and identity without clarifying the source or context of these claims. This equivocation leaves the statement vague and avoids addressing the specific comment he made, allowing him to sidestep the original question.

2. Red Herring: Instead of addressing the appropriateness of his previous comment, Trump again shifts the focus to the idea that either racial identity is "okay" with him. This is a red herring, as it distracts from the core issue of whether it was appropriate to comment on Harris's racial identity at all, rather than her identity being acceptable to him.

3. Appeal to Ignorance: By saying "I don't know" twice, Trump invokes appeal to ignorance, suggesting that because he doesn’t have certain information or full clarity, the issue is not worth addressing or discussing further. This fallacy is used to dismiss the significance of the conversation, avoiding engagement with the substance of his initial remarks.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, your thoughts on this?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I think it's - I mean honestly, I think it's a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently over the course of his career attempted to use race to divide the American people. You know, I do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us. And we don't want this kind of approach that is just constantly trying to divide us, and especially by race. And let's remember how Donald Trump started. He was a, a, a-land, he owned land, he owned buildings, and he was investigated because he refused to rent property to Black families. Let's remember, this is the same individual who took out a full-page ad in The New York Times calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five. Took out a full-page ad calling for their execution. This is the same individual who spread birther lies about the first Black President of the United States. And I think the American people want better than that. Want better than this. Want someone who understands as I do, I travel our country, we see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other. I meet with people all the time who tell me "Can we please just have discourse about how we're going to invest in the aspirations and the ambitions and the dreams of the American people?" Knowing that regardless of people's color or the language their grandmother speaks we all have the same dreams and aspirations and want a president who invests in those, not in hate and division.

1. Ad Hominem: Harris criticizes Trump’s character by referencing past controversies, such as his refusal to rent to Black families, his involvement in the Central Park Five case, and the birtherism conspiracy. While these points may be valid criticisms of his behavior, they function as ad hominem attacks because they focus on Trump’s character and past actions rather than directly addressing the question or the issue at hand in the debate.

2. Appeal to Emotion: Harris appeals to the audience’s emotions by recalling sensitive issues related to race and justice, such as the Central Park Five and birtherism, to evoke feelings of outrage or sympathy. This appeal to emotion shifts the focus away from a logical discussion and instead aims to influence the audience’s feelings toward Trump’s actions and rhetoric.

3. Strawman Fallacy: Harris implies that Trump’s entire political career has been centered around racial division, oversimplifying and distorting his positions. This strawman fallacy portrays Trump in an exaggerated, negative light without engaging with any specific policy or position he holds on race-related issues today.

4. False Dilemma: Harris suggests that the only two options are either to support Trump, who "divides" America by race, or to support a leader like herself, who emphasizes unity and shared aspirations. This false dilemma ignores the possibility of more nuanced or alternative approaches to leadership that do not fit neatly into this binary distinction.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris thank you. Linsey?

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, this is now your third time --

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This is the most divisive presidency in the history of our country. There's never been anything like it. They're destroying our country. And they come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people including Mayor Bloomberg agreed with me on the Central Park Five. They admitted -- they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty -- then they pled we're not guilty. But this is a person that has to stretch back years, 40, 50 years ago because there's nothing now. I built one of the greatest economies in the history of the world and I'm going to build it again. It's going to be bigger, better and stronger. But they're destroying our economy. They have no idea what a good economy is. Their oil policies -- every single policy -- and remember this. She is Biden. She's trying to get away from Biden. I don't know the gentleman, she says. She is Biden. The worst inflation we've ever had. A horrible economy because inflation has made it so bad and she can't get away with that.

1. Red Herring: Trump shifts the focus from the question about his presidency and divisiveness to defending his position on the Central Park Five, which occurred decades ago. This red herring distracts from the issue at hand by bringing up a past event that isn't directly relevant to the current topic of his presidency’s divisiveness.

2. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Harris by associating her directly with Biden, implying that any failures in the Biden administration are automatically her responsibility as well. This ad hominem attack seeks to undermine her credibility by tying her to the current administration’s perceived failures rather than addressing her policies or specific arguments.

3. Appeal to Authority (Misuse): By mentioning that Mayor Bloomberg agreed with him on the Central Park Five case, Trump uses appeal to authority to justify his past stance. However, since this authority figure (Bloomberg) is not directly relevant to the current issue or the debate, this serves as a misuse of the appeal.

4. Appeal to Nostalgia: Trump appeals to past successes ("I built one of the greatest economies in the history of the world") without addressing the complexities of the present situation. This appeal to nostalgia simplifies the current economic challenges by relying on a glorified version of the past, rather than offering specific solutions for today.

5. Strawman Fallacy: Trump misrepresents Harris’s statements by suggesting that she is trying to "get away from Biden" and implying she denies a connection with him. This strawman fallacy distorts her stance to make it seem like she’s distancing herself from Biden, although there’s no evidence she has done so in the debate.

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, thank you, your time is up. Linsey --

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I want to respond to that, though. I want to just respond briefly. Clearly, I am not Joe Biden, and I am certainly not Donald Trump. And what I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country. One who believes in what is possible, one who brings a sense of optimism about what we can do instead of always disparaging the American people. I believe in what we can do to strengthen our small businesses, which is why I have a plan. Let's talk about our plans. And, and let's compare the plans. I have a plan to give startup businesses $50,000 tax deduction, to pursue their ambitions, their innovation, their ideas, their hard work. I have a plan. $6,000 for young families for the first year of your child's life. To help you in that most critical stage of your child's development. I have a plan that is about allowing people to be able to pursue what has been fleeting in terms of the American dream by offering help with down payment of $25,000, down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. That's the kind of conversation I believe, David, that people really want tonight as opposed to a conversation that is constantly about belittling and name-calling. Let's turn the page and move forward.

1. False Dichotomy: Harris sets up a contrast between herself and Trump, implying that voters have a choice between her optimistic vision and Trump’s disparaging rhetoric. While there are only two candidates, this false dichotomy simplifies the political landscape by presenting the two approaches as the only available options, ignoring potential complexities or other leadership styles.

2. Appeal to Emotion: Harris’s focus on offering tax breaks and financial support for small businesses, young families, and homebuyers appeals to voters’ emotions and desires for economic stability and opportunity. This appeal to emotion draws on the positive feelings associated with financial support and prosperity, while not delving into the practicalities of her policies or how they will be implemented.

3. Ad Hominem (Implied): Though more subtle, Harris implies that Trump’s approach is one of "belittling and name-calling." This ad hominem is indirect, as it criticizes Trump’s character and approach rather than directly engaging with specific policies or arguments he has presented in the debate.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you.

LINSEY DAVIS: We have to move on. President trump --

PRESIDENT TRUMP: She is destroying our country. She has a plan to defund the police. She has a plan to confiscate everybody's gun. She has a plan to not allow fracking in Pennsylvania or anywhere else. That's what her plan is until just recently.

1. Strawman Fallacy: Trump misrepresents Harris's policies by claiming she has plans to "defund the police," "confiscate everybody's guns," and "not allow fracking," even though these points do not accurately reflect Harris’s stated positions during the debate. This strawman fallacy distorts Harris’s actual positions, making them appear more extreme than they are.

2. Slippery Slope: Trump implies that Harris’s policies will lead to extreme and negative outcomes, such as confiscating guns and banning fracking. This slippery slope fallacy suggests that her policies will inevitably lead to drastic and harmful consequences, without providing evidence that these outcomes will occur.

3. Appeal to Fear: By stating that Harris is "destroying our country" and associating her with radical policies like disarming the public and banning fracking, Trump uses appeal to fear to create anxiety about Harris’s potential leadership. This tactic plays on voters' fears about the future rather than engaging with the specific merits of her policies.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, President Trump.

VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS: The former president has said something twice and I need to respond too. I just need to respond one time to what he has said multiple times.

No fallacy identified.

LINSEY DAVIS: I'm sorry, we're going to move on, Vice President Harris. This is now your third time running for president. you have long vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. You have failed to accomplish that. You now say you're going to keep Obamacare. Quote, unless we can do something much better. Last month you said, quote, we're working on it. So tonight, nine years after you first started running, do you have a plan and can you tell us what it is?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Obamacare was lousy health care. Always was. It's not very good today. And what I said, that if we come up with something, we are working on things, we're going to do it and we're going to replace it. But remember this. I inherited Obamacare because Democrats wouldn't change it. They wouldn't vote for it. They were unanimous. They wouldn't vote to change it. If they would have done that, we would have had a much better plan than Obamacare. But the Democrats came up, they wouldn't vote for it. I had a choice to make when I was president, do I save it and make it as good as it can be? Never going to be great. Or do I let it rot? And I felt I had an obligation, even though politically it would have been good to just let it rot and let it go away. I decided -- and I told my people, the top people, and they're very good people -- I have a lot of good people in this -- that administration. We read about the bad ones. We had some real bad ones too. And so do they. They have really bad ones. The difference is they don't get rid of them. But let me just explain. I had a choice to make do I save it and make it as good as it can be or let it rot? And I saved it. I did the right thing. But it's still never going to be great. And it's too expensive for people. And what we will do is we're looking at different plans. If we can come up with a plan that's going to cost our people, our population less money and be better health care than Obamacare, then I would absolutely do it. But until then I'd run it as good as it can be run.

1. False Dilemma: Trump presents two options regarding Obamacare: either let it "rot" or "save it and make it as good as it can be." This false dilemma oversimplifies the situation by suggesting these are the only two possible courses of action, when in reality, there could be other options, such as reforming specific aspects of the Affordable Care Act while keeping the overall system intact.

2. Appeal to Authority: Trump mentions that he has "top people" and "very good people" working on the issue, without specifying who they are or what specific improvements they have made. This is an appeal to authority, relying on the credibility of unnamed experts to bolster his argument without providing concrete evidence or details.

3. Slippery Slope (Implied): Trump implies that allowing Obamacare to "rot" would have been politically advantageous but harmful to the country. This slippery slope fallacy suggests that the only alternative to his actions would have been complete failure of the healthcare system, without exploring other viable options or reforms.

LINSEY DAVIS: So just a yes or no, you still do not have a plan?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have concepts of a plan. I'm not president right now. But if we come up with something I would only change it if we come up with something better and less expensive. And there are concepts and options we have to do that. And you'll be hearing about it in the not-too-distant future.

1. Evasion (Not a Formal Fallacy, but Avoiding the Question): Rather than giving a direct "yes" or "no" as requested, Trump responds by discussing "concepts" and future possibilities, effectively evading the core question about whether he has an actual plan. This avoidance leaves the question unanswered and shifts the focus to future hypotheticals.

2. Appeal to the Future: Trump states that "you'll be hearing about it in the not-too-distant future," which is an appeal to the future fallacy. This tactic avoids providing any current evidence or details by promising that more information will come later, without offering concrete plans at present.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in 2017 you supported Bernie Sanders' proposal to do away with private insurance and create a government-run health care system. Two years later you proposed a plan that included a private insurance option. What is your plan today?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, first of all, I absolutely support and over the last four years as vice president private health care options. But what we need to do is maintain and grow the Affordable Care Act. But I, I'll get to that, linsey. I just need to respond to a previous point that the former president has made. I've made very clear my position on fracking. And then this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.

1. Strawman: By stating "we're not taking anybody's guns away," Harris sets up a mischaracterization of Trump's argument. While Trump may have criticized her stance on gun control, portraying his argument as an absolute claim that she wants to confiscate all guns simplifies the discussion and avoids engaging with any more nuanced points he may have made.
2. Ad Hominem: Harris accuses Trump of "continuous lying," directly attacking his credibility rather than focusing solely on the substance of the policy debate. This fallacy shifts the focus from the issue of gun control or fracking to an attack on Trump's personal integrity.

As it relates to the Affordable Care Act, understand, just look at the history to know where people stand. When Donald Trump was president, 60 times he tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. 60 times. I was a senator at the time. When, I will never forget the early morning hours when it was up for a vote in the United States Senate and the late great John McCain, who you have disparaged as being - uh, you don't like him, you said at the time because he got caught, he was an American hero. The late great John McCain, I will never forget that night. Walked onto the Senate floor and said no, you don't. No, you don't. No, you don't get rid of the Affordable Care Act. You have no plan. And what the Affordable Care Act has done is eliminate the ability of insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions. I don't have to tell the people watching tonight, you remember what that was like? Remember when an insurance company could deny if a child had asthma, if someone was a breast cancer survivor, if a grandparent had diabetes? And thankfully, as I've been vice president and we over the last four years have strengthened the Affordable Care Act, we have allowed for the first time Medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of you the American people. Donald Trump said he was going to allow Medicare to negotiate dr, drug prices. He never did. We did. And now we have capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month. Since I've been vice president we have capped the cost of prescription medication for seniors at $2,000 a year. And when I am president we will do that for all people understanding that the value I bring to this is that access to health care should be a right and not just a privilege of those who can afford it. And the plan has to be to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, not get rid of it, (in audible) in terms of where Donald Trump stands on that.

Appeal to Emotion:

Harris invokes emotionally charged memories, such as recalling the late John McCain's dramatic vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to strengthen her argument. This appeals to the audience’s emotions, especially by emphasizing McCain's stature and the personal impact of healthcare decisions, but it doesn't directly address policy specifics.

1. Strawman: Harris claims that Trump "has no plan" to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but Trump had previously mentioned having "concepts of a plan" and the intention to present a replacement when he had something better and less expensive. By stating that he has "no plan," Harris oversimplifies Trump's position, creating a strawman to argue against.
2. Appeal to Authority: Harris invokes the name of John McCain, a widely respected figure, to strengthen her argument. She recounts McCain’s pivotal role in voting down the repeal of the ACA and references Trump's negative remarks about him. While this appeals to McCain’s authority and reputation, it does not directly address the current debate about the ACA or Trump’s potential healthcare reforms.
3. Emotional Appeal: Harris repeatedly emphasizes personal and emotional stories about people denied healthcare for pre-existing conditions and their suffering before the ACA. While compelling, this appeal to emotion can detract from a more direct analysis of Trump’s specific policies or alternatives to the ACA.
4. Guilt by Association: Harris links Trump’s attempts to repeal the ACA with his personal remarks about John McCain, implying that Trump's personal character flaws disqualify his policy decisions. While it may be relevant in a broad sense, it doesn't directly address the issue of healthcare policy itself.

LINSEY DAVIS: I want to move to an issue that's important --

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: She made a mistake. Number one, John McCain fought Obamacare for ten years. But it wasn't only him. It was, All of the Democrats that kept it going. And you know what? We could do much better than Obamacare. Much less money. But she won't improve private insurance for people. Private, medical insurance. That's another thing she doesn't want

1. Hasty Generalization: Trump claims that all Democrats "kept Obamacare going" without acknowledging any nuances or differing opinions within the Democratic Party. This broad generalization oversimplifies the diverse views within the party regarding healthcare reform.
2. Red Herring: Trump shifts the focus from Harris’s point about John McCain’s vote against repealing the ACA to a broader critique of all Democrats and the potential for better healthcare plans. This diverts attention from the specific issue Harris raised, which was about McCain’s vote and Trump’s plan (or lack thereof) to repeal and replace Obamacare.
3. Strawman: Trump claims that Harris “won’t improve private insurance for people,” which misrepresents her position. Harris did not explicitly argue against improving private insurance in her previous statement. Instead, Trump attributes an exaggerated or inaccurate position to her to argue against.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: People are paying privately for insurance that have worked hard and made money and they want to have private. She wants everybody to be on government insurance where you wait six months for an operation that you need immediately.

1. Strawman: Trump oversimplifies Harris’s position by suggesting she wants "everybody to be on government insurance," which misrepresents her stance. Harris supports maintaining the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and expanding options, not eliminating private insurance entirely. This misrepresentation creates an easier argument for Trump to attack.
2. Slippery Slope: Trump implies that if Harris's healthcare plan were implemented, it would lead to people waiting "six months for an operation that you need immediately," without providing evidence that her proposals would lead to such extreme delays. This assumes an exaggerated worst-case scenario without proof.
3. False Dilemma: Trump presents the situation as if there are only two options: private insurance or government insurance with long wait times. In reality, there are other possible solutions, including a mix of private and public options, such as the system Harris supports.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, thank you. We have another issue that we'd like to get to that's important for a number of Americans, in particular younger voters, and that's climate change. President Trump, with regard to the environment, you say that we have to have clean air and clean water. Vice President Harris, you call climate change an existential threat. The question to you both tonight is what would you do to fight climate change? And Vice President Harris, we'll start with you. One minute for you each.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, the former president had said that climate change is a hoax. And what we know is that it is very real. You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences who now is either being denied home insurance or is being jacked up. You ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go. We know that we can actually deal with this issue. The young people of America care deeply about this issue. And I am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels. We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while I have been vice president. We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world. Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs. He lost manufacturing jobs. And I'm also proud to have the endorsement of the United Auto Workers and Shawn Fain, who also know that part of building a clean energy economy includes investing in American-made products, American automobiles. It includes growing what we can do around American manufacturing and opening up auto plants, not closing them like what happened under Donald Trump.

1. Strawman: Harris claims that Trump said climate change is a hoax. While Trump has made controversial statements about climate change, the way she frames this as a dismissal of the entire issue simplifies and misrepresents Trump’s broader environmental policies, creating a weaker argument to criticize.
2. Appeal to Emotion: Harris appeals to the emotional experiences of those affected by extreme weather and insurance issues without directly tying them to concrete climate policies or data. While these events are real, the emotional appeal may overshadow a more rational or detailed explanation of the policies she would support to mitigate these challenges.
3. Red Herring: Harris shifts focus from climate change specifically to a discussion about job creation and manufacturing, which diverts the conversation away from the original question regarding fighting climate change, even though these issues are somewhat related.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, thank you.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That didn't happen under Donald Trump. Let me just tell you, they lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month. It's going -- they're all leaving. They're building big auto plants in Mexico. In many cases owned by China. They're building these massive plants, and they think they're going to sell their cars into the United States because of these people. What they have given to China is unbelievable. But we're not going to let that. We'll put tariffs on those cars so they can't come into our country. Because they will kill the United Auto Workers and any auto worker, whether it's in Detroit or South Carolina or any other place. What they've done to business and manufacturing in this country is horrible. We have nothing because they refuse -- you know, Biden doesn't go after people because supposedly China paid him millions of dollars. He's afraid to do it. Between him and his son. They get all this money from Ukraine. They get all this money from all of these different countries. And then you wonder why is he so loyal to this one, that one Ukraine, China? Why is he? Why did he get 3 1/2 million dollars from the mayor of Moscow's wife? Why did he get -- why did she pay him 3 1/2 million dollars? This is a crooked administration, and they're selling our country down the tubes.

1. Hasty Generalization: Trump mentions that 10,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in one month and extrapolates that all manufacturing is "going." He generalizes from a single data point to make a broader claim about the overall state of manufacturing without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. Appeal to Fear: Trump suggests that Chinese-owned auto plants will "kill" the United Auto Workers and other auto workers. This appeals to the audience's fear of job loss and economic harm without offering concrete evidence that these events will occur as a direct result of the current policies.
3. Ad Hominem: Trump accuses President Biden and his son of corruption, including claims of receiving money from Ukraine, China, and the mayor of Moscow's wife. These personal attacks are not directly related to the question about climate change or manufacturing, but they serve to discredit Biden without addressing the policies under discussion.
4. Red Herring: Trump brings up Biden’s alleged ties to Ukraine, China, and other countries, which diverts attention from the topic of climate change and manufacturing jobs. These accusations are unrelated to the issue at hand, serving as a distraction from the original question.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, thank you.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Thank you.

DAVID MUIR: We'll be right back with closing statements from both of our candidates. A historic night, this ABC News Presidential Debate from Philadelphia. Back in a moment.

DAVID MUIR: The time has come for closing statements. And Vice President Harris, we begin with you.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So I think you've heard tonight two very different visions for our country. One that is focused on the future and the other that is focused on the past. And an attempt to take us backward. But we're not going back. And I do believe that the American people know we all have so much more in common than what separates us and we can chart a new way forward. And a vision of that includes having a plan, understanding the aspirations, the dreams, the hopes, the ambition of the American people, which is why I intend to create an opportunity economy, investing in small businesses, in new families, in what we can do around protecting seniors, what we can do that is about giving hard-working folks a break in bringing down the cost of living. I believe in what we can do together that is about sustaining America's standing in the world and ensuring we have the respect that we so rightly deserve including respecting our military and ensuring we have the most lethal fighting force in the world. I will be a president that will protect our fundamental rights and freedoms including the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do. I'll tell you, I started my career as a prosecutor. I was a D.A. I was an attorney general. A United States senator. And now vice president. I've only had one client. The people. And I'll tell you, as a prosecutor I never asked a victim or a witness are you a Republican or a Democrat. The only thing I ever asked them, are you okay? And that's the kind of president we need right now. Someone who cares about you and is not putting themselves first. I intend to be a president for all Americans and focus on what we can do over the next 10 and 20 years to build back up our country by investing right now in you the American people.

1. False Dichotomy: Harris frames the election as a choice between a future-focused vision (hers) and a past-focused one (Trump’s), suggesting there are only two possible paths forward. This simplifies the complexity of political issues and ignores alternative viewpoints or policy nuances.
2. Appeal to Emotion: Throughout her closing statement, Harris uses emotionally charged language to connect with the audience, such as references to “protecting our fundamental rights,” the “aspirations and dreams” of the people, and “caring about you.” While not inherently fallacious, the strong emotional appeal risks overshadowing policy details.
3. Strawman: Harris characterizes Trump’s vision as entirely focused on “taking us backward” without acknowledging any of his proposed policies or potential future plans, thereby oversimplifying and misrepresenting his stance.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: So, she just started by saying she's going to do this, she's going to do that, she's going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn't she done it? She's been there for 3 1/2 years. They've had 3 1/2 years to fix the border. They've had 3 1/2 years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. Why hasn't she done it? She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful white house, go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. But you haven't done it. And you won't do it. Because you believe in things that the American people don't believe in. You believe in things like we're not going to frack. We're not going to take fossil fuel. We're not going to do, things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not. Germany tried that and within one year they were back to building normal energy plants. We're not ready for it. We can't sacrifice our country for the sake of bad vision. But I just ask one simple question. Why didn't she do it? We're a failing nation. We're a nation that's in serious decline. We're being laughed at all over the world. All over the world, they laugh, I know the leaders very well. They're coming to see me. They call me. We're laughed at all over the world. They don't understand what happened to us as a nation. We're not a leader. We don't have any idea what's going on. We have wars going on in the Middle East. We have wars going on with Russia and Ukraine. We're going to end up in a third World War. And it will be a war like no other because of nuclear weapons, the power of weaponry. I rebuilt our entire military. She gave a lot of it away to the Taliban. She gave it to Afghanistan. What these people have done to our country, and maybe toughest of all is allowing millions of people to come into our country, many of them are criminals, and they're destroying our country. The worst president, the worst vice president in the history of our country.

1. Ad Hominem: Trump attacks Vice President Harris by calling her "the worst vice president in the history of our country" rather than addressing the substance of her policies or actions, focusing on personal attacks instead.
2. False Cause (Post Hoc): Trump claims that nuclear war or other serious global conflicts will happen under Harris' leadership without any clear evidence directly linking her policies to such catastrophic outcomes. The assumption that her leadership would inevitably lead to such crises oversimplifies complex global dynamics.
3. Strawman: Trump misrepresents Harris' and the administration's policies, particularly on energy and fossil fuels, by implying they want to completely halt fossil fuel use immediately without acknowledging the incremental and balanced approach that many clean energy advocates actually propose.
4. Appeal to Fear: Throughout his statement, Trump appeals to fear, suggesting that under Harris and Biden, the U.S. is "failing," "laughed at," and on the brink of a third world war, particularly using the threat of nuclear weapons to stoke anxiety.
5. Hasty Generalization: Trump claims that "millions of people" coming into the country are criminals, a sweeping generalization without any detailed evidence or nuanced discussion about immigration patterns or policies.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump thank you. And that is our ABC News presidential debate from here in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center. I'm Linsey Davis.

DAVID MUIR: And I'm David Muir. Thank you for watching here in the U.S. And all over the world. And from all of us here at ABC News, good night.

Now, let's dive into the conclusions and the key explanations that led to the final analysis, including the visual breakdown of where Trump and Kamala land on the truth and emotional scales.

Doooonald Truuump!

Truth Axis: -3 to -5

1. Inconsistent Claims & Fact-Checking Issues: Throughout the debate, Donald Trump made numerous claims that were either misleading, factually inaccurate, or unsupported by evidence. Some of the more notable examples include:
   • Election Denial: Despite numerous court rulings and investigations confirming the legitimacy of the 2020 election, Trump continued to assert that the election was "stolen" without providing verified evidence. Fact-checking organizations and court cases have consistently debunked these claims.
   • Handling of the Pandemic: Trump made exaggerated statements about his administration's pandemic response and often downplayed the seriousness of the virus during his presidency.
   • Other Inaccurate Statements: During the debate, Trump repeated unverified or inaccurate claims on topics ranging from immigration to crime rates, to energy policy.
2. Use of Fallacies:
   • Strawman Arguments: Trump often misrepresented or exaggerated his opponents' stances or facts in order to discredit them. For example, he consistently claimed that Kamala Harris wanted to "take everyone's guns" and "ban fracking," despite clear evidence to the contrary.
   • Whataboutism: When confronted with a direct question (like his handling of the January 6th insurrection), Trump frequently deflected by bringing up unrelated issues (e.g., crime rates, immigration, etc.), without addressing the core issue.
3. Manipulative or Misleading Rhetoric: While Trump has strong, loyal supporters, many of his claims rely on manipulation rather than solid evidence. He often appeals to base fears (e.g., immigration, crime) and uses them to shift the narrative away from topics where his arguments are weak or unsupported.

For these reasons, his position on the truth axis leans toward the negative, with a -3 to -5 range, acknowledging that while some statements are based on partial truths, there is significant reliance on misleading or false narratives.

Emotional Axis: 8

1. Emotional Appeals & High-Energy Rhetoric: Trump's communication style is characterized by intense emotional appeal, often delivered with a high degree of conviction and energy. He frequently speaks in a way that resonates deeply with his base, using emotionally charged language, and he is skilled at rallying his supporters by appealing to their fears, frustrations, and national pride.
   • Fear-Based Rhetoric: Trump frequently uses emotional rhetoric centered around fear, particularly concerning immigration, crime, and the future of America under Democratic leadership. He talks about the country being "destroyed" and invokes a sense of urgency to "save" the nation from existential threats.
   • Personal Attacks: He often deploys insults or negative personal characterizations of his opponents (e.g., calling Joe Biden "weak" or saying Kamala Harris "hates Israel"). These personal attacks are meant to stir strong emotional reactions.
   • Exaggeration for Impact: Trump often uses hyperbole (e.g., "millions are dying in Ukraine," or "they're destroying our country") to amplify emotional resonance, even when the facts don't support such extreme language.
2. Connection with Supporters:
   • Trump has an ability to connect deeply with his audience by using language that makes them feel heard and represented. He frequently portrays himself as an outsider fighting against a corrupt establishment, which stirs strong emotions of loyalty and trust among his base.
   • His rallies and public speaking engagements are known for their emotionally charged atmosphere, with him playing off the crowd's energy and stoking their enthusiasm. His use of slogans like "Make America Great Again" and "America First" appeal directly to people's emotions, particularly their patriotism and sense of identity.

For these reasons, Trump is rated at 8 on the emotional axis, as his speeches are highly emotional, rallying supporters through passion, fear, and frustration rather than sober, dispassionate analysis.

Conclusion:

• Truth Axis (-3 to -5): His frequent reliance on misinformation, false claims, and use of fallacies to manipulate facts places him on the lower end of the truth axis.
• Emotional Axis (8): His ability to energize and emotionally engage his audience, often by playing on fears and frustrations, puts him very high on the emotional axis, reflecting his effectiveness at stirring strong emotions.

Kamaaala Haaarris!

Truth Axis: 4 to 6

1. Reliance on Verified Information: Kamala Harris, throughout the debate, leaned heavily on established facts and data, especially regarding her defense of the Affordable Care Act, climate change, and foreign policy. Many of her statements were backed by policy achievements during her vice presidency and President Biden’s administration, such as:
   • Affordable Care Act: Harris highlighted the progress made in healthcare by emphasizing the policy changes under the Biden administration, such as capping insulin prices and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. These claims were based on verified legislative achievements.
   • Climate Change: She acknowledged the real impact of climate change and provided data-supported arguments about the investments made in clean energy and job creation in this sector, which are factually backed by recent reports on clean energy investments.
   • Foreign Policy: Harris referenced her engagements with NATO allies and her interactions with foreign leaders such as President Zelenskyy, which are well-documented.
2. Minor Exaggeration & Political Spin: While her discourse was largely grounded in factual statements, there were instances where Harris employed political spin or selectively framed issues to present a more favorable narrative. For example:
   • Framing Trump’s Healthcare Approach: While it is true that Trump attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the way she framed his lack of a healthcare plan could be seen as slightly oversimplified. Trump had "concepts" of a plan, but Harris chose to emphasize the failures without acknowledging this nuance, which may be seen as a political maneuver rather than a falsehood.
   • Statements on January 6th & Donald Trump: Harris’s depiction of Trump’s actions on January 6th was largely accurate, though framed to evoke strong moral condemnation. She accurately pointed out Trump’s impeachment and indictment for incitement, but the way she layered these points made his role seem even more directly causative than what the impeachment trials ultimately concluded.
3. Fallacies & Errors in Debate: While Harris used fact-based arguments, there were moments where her logic incorporated rhetorical fallacies or exaggerations:
   • Ad Hominem Attacks: She consistently portrayed Trump as an unfit leader, mentioning his past actions and personal conduct (e.g., birtherism, Central Park Five). While true, these critiques were often used to deflect from more substantive policy questions, suggesting a heavier reliance on emotional critique than factual counterarguments in certain instances.
   • Appeals to Emotion: Harris invoked emotional narratives, such as her childhood experiences or friends who were victims of violence, to support her policies. While these stories were not necessarily false, they were used to emotionally engage the audience, which shifts slightly away from pure fact-based argumentation.

Summary of Truth Axis Position: Kamala Harris is positioned between 4 to 6 because her statements were largely fact-based, but included some minor political framing and selective emphasis that leaned toward spin rather than strict objectivity. Despite these moments, the majority of her arguments were grounded in verifiable information.

Emotional Axis: 6

1. Moderate Emotional Appeal: Harris delivered her points with a moderate level of emotional intensity, striking a balance between factual argumentation and emotional engagement. Her communication style is generally more reserved than Trump’s, but still incorporates emotionally resonant stories and themes, particularly:
   • Personal Narratives: Harris referenced personal anecdotes, such as her childhood, her role as a prosecutor, and stories about friends and family, in an effort to connect emotionally with the audience. These personal stories were used effectively to convey empathy and concern for the struggles of ordinary Americans.
   • Emotional Topics: Harris touched on highly emotional issues such as healthcare, climate change, and the January 6th insurrection. These topics inherently evoke emotional reactions, and she used them to underscore the moral imperative behind her policy proposals. For example, she invoked the image of children being denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions to emotionally highlight the importance of maintaining the Affordable Care Act.
2. Criticism of Opponent: While Harris didn’t reach the same level of intensity as Trump in terms of personal attacks, she did make emotional appeals when criticizing Trump’s conduct and leadership:
   • January 6th Insurrection: Harris framed Trump’s actions during the insurrection in stark moral terms, evoking strong condemnation. She used this narrative to call into question Trump’s fitness for office, which stirred emotional responses around democracy and national security.
   • Appealing to National Identity: Harris frequently appealed to American values such as democracy, integrity, and unity, attempting to inspire the audience through a sense of shared national identity. This is an emotionally engaging approach but one that also taps into collective American values.
3. Restraint in Tone: Unlike Trump, whose emotional delivery was highly animated and combative, Harris maintained a more measured tone throughout the debate. While her arguments contained emotional elements, they were delivered in a relatively controlled and composed manner, which kept her from reaching the higher end of the emotional axis. This style likely appeals to voters looking for steady, less confrontational leadership.

Summary of Emotional Axis Position: Harris’s position at 6 on the emotional axis reflects her use of personal narratives and emotionally charged issues to make her case, while balancing this with a more restrained and composed delivery. She engages the audience emotionally, but not to the same intense degree as more fiery or populist politicians.

Conclusion:

• Truth Axis (4 to 6): Harris predominantly uses factual information but occasionally incorporates political framing, emotional appeals, and selective emphasis to strengthen her arguments. Her rhetoric, while generally grounded in verified information, includes moments of oversimplification or spin.
• Emotional Axis (6): Her moderate emotional engagement is reflected in her use of personal stories and morally charged topics, delivered in a controlled and reserved style. She balances emotional resonance with a factual approach, but doesn't reach the intensity of more populist figures like Trump.

The findings of this analysis paint a complex picture of both candidates' debate performance. Based solely on the debate transcript and the fact-checking provided by ABC News, Kamala Harris ranks higher on the truth axis, consistently backing her points with verified data, though not without some selective framing and politically charged exaggerations. Positioned between 4 and 6 on the truth axis, Harris demonstrated a predominantly fact-based argument, but with emotional appeals that placed her at 6 on the emotional axis. Her rhetoric was driven by personal stories, references to past achievements, and a moderate amount of emotional engagement to highlight the stakes for the American people.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, fell between -3 and -5 on the truth axis, primarily due to multiple false or misleading claims, some of which were fact-checked and refuted during the debate. However, Trump demonstrated high emotional engagement, scoring at 8 on the emotional axis, as he leaned heavily on stirring rhetoric, personal attacks, and evocative language to energize his base. His performance reflected his signature approach, combining emotionally charged language with populist themes to appeal to his supporters, albeit with a lower commitment to factual accuracy.

In conclusion, the two candidates represented stark contrasts in terms of their communication style and relationship to truth. Harris, while occasionally using emotional appeals, tended to focus more on verified facts and accomplishments. Trump, in contrast, heavily relied on emotional engagement and strong rhetoric, sometimes at the expense of factual accuracy. Both approaches reflect their broader political strategies and offer a glimpse into the direction each would lead if given the presidency. However, it's important to note that this analysis is based entirely on the debate as presented and fact-checked by ABC News, and therefore reflects only the information available through these channels at the time.

The problem with politicians? They’re master charmers, especially when they’re standing behind a podium throwing out "facts" like free candy at a parade. Their speeches? Oh-so-powerful and moving. Why? Because they’re playing 4D chess with fallacies, not facts.

A fallacy, for those who missed the memo, is a fancy word for BS. It’s a way of twisting an argument to make it sound legit, even when it’s as solid as a soggy waffle.

Most of us didn’t take “How Not to Be Bamboozled by Politicians 101” in school, which means we’re sitting ducks for the emotional manipulation and slick tricks they pull. They’ve got the razzle-dazzle of fallacies down to an art form, and we eat it up. The danger? We fall for it. Hook, line, and sucker punch. But let’s be real—fallacies are like guns. It’s not the weapon, but the one pulling the trigger we need to worry about. And trust me, some of these folks hide some pretty questionable intentions behind that mountain of rhetoric—whether they’re aiming for good or bad, that’s what really counts.

So, what did I do? I said, let’s stop pretending this isn’t a show and break it down. I’ve plotted these political performers on two axes: one for how well they manipulate your emotions (aka, how big their rhetorical guns are), and another for how truthful they are (based on, you know, actual facts). Spoiler alert: It’s a wild ride. Behold the below chart.

Draw your own conclusions, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.