Facts: Why They're Not Optional

Image - www.allvoices.com

One of the first things that students are told to do when making an argument, whether in an essay or in a debate setting is to find facts to back them up and cite them.  English teachers everywhere are harping on the importance of finding text references, citing sources and making a VALID argument; one where the facts support your thesis.  If you have unsupported arguments in your essay, then you have lost credibility, not just where those arguments are used, but in your entire paper.  When there is no fact to back up an argument it cannot stand, therefore you have no argument.

This might seem like common sense to anyone in the education world, however, where are the teachers of today's political masterminds and campaign leaders?  Why do politicians feel they are above the rules of validity and fact?  The lack of factual, source cited arguments in this campaign have actually been nauseating. On a daily basis there are hundreds of television ads that are based in little to no fact.  How are the American people supposed to make a choice when they really have no idea who they're choosing or why?

In this regard, the president actually has the advantage.  He's had four years to do something and can be judged based on what he's done, attempted to do, and failed to do.  We don't need some fiery rhetoric (though the Republicans have supplied plenty) to know what has taken place the past four years.  So while the Obama campaign is no better than the Romney campaign in its use of facts, at least there is four years of undisputed evidence to use for or against him.

Or is there? If you believe what the Romney campaign would have you believe, Obama has actually not done anything in the past four years except destroy this country.  Some of these arguments are based in reality and are just a matter of opinion on what it means to "destroy" the country.  Others however, like Clint Eastwood's invisible chair speech are so far from reality its difficult to understand how anyone can support such a fact-less claim: "I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK. You know, I mean — you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did it — they did there for 10 years." (Read more: www.politico.com)  Blaming Obama for the war in Afghanistan? Interesting fact-less tactic for sure.

So while this election will likely be a close one, I encourage everyone to try and find the truth behind the candidates before they vote.  Either that, or decide how each party would do in the fictional world they have created and vote based on their ads that are also not based in reality. But don't let your students forget than an argument is only good if it has facts to support it.  And don't forget, BOTH sides have forgotten to back up their arguments, so while one might be more entertaining than the other, don't let your students believe that  only the "other" party is to blame.

-MB

For more facts visit:

Politifact.com - http://www.politifact.com/

FactCheck.org - http://factcheck.org/