An Analysis of Logical Fallacies on Argumentation between Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto during 2019 Indonesia Presidential Debates

Warman, Jaka Satria (2019) An Analysis of Logical Fallacies on Argumentation between Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto during 2019 Indonesia Presidential Debates. Skripsi thesis, Universitas Negeri Padang.

Preview

Text A_03_Jaka_Satria_Warman_15019011_3973_2019.pdf Download (554kB) | Preview

Abstract

This research aimed at finding the types of logical fallacies made by two presidential candidates, Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto, during 2019 Indonesia presidential debates. The type of this research is descritive research. The data are utterences which contain logical fallacies and the source of the data is the transcripts of four videos. The theory of fallacy classification by Darner (2009) was employed in this research. There are totally sixty types of fallacies based on the theory, but only the common ones (twenty types) were analyzed. The results show that there are some similarities and differences between the two candidates in making the types of fallacies. The fallacies of arguing in a circle, drawing the wrong conclusion, false alternatives, cofusion of a necessary with a sufficient condition and red herring were made by both condidates. The fallacies of question begging definition, using the wrong reason, insufficient sample, abusive ad hominem, two-wrong fallacy, attacking a straw man and trivial objections were only made by Joko Widodo. Meanwhile the fallacies of incompatible premise, genetic fallacy, appeal to irrelevant authority, appeal to force or threat, manipulation of emotions, fallacy of composition, causal oversimplification and resort to humor or ridicule was only made by Prabowo. Abusive ad hominem became the most dominant fallacy made by Jokowi with the frequency of 21.73% while false alternative was the most dominant fallacy made by Prabowo with the frequency of 31.25%.

Actions (login required)

View Item