No to candidates war of words

Franois Castilloux
This letter is my reaction
towards the content of the
article War of words
between Reynolds and
Gravelle by journalist
Allison Loranger on the 5th
of April 2011. As an
intellectual in
communication and
argumentation, I felt the duty
to intervene in what I consider to be a disgraceful war of
words fueled recently by electoral candidate Claude
Gravelle and Lynne Reynolds. What is disgraceful here is
nothing related to their political platform, but it is more
precisely the content of their arguments and behaviors
towards their opponents and criticism. Among all
arguments collected by Tribune, these candidates seem to
often use arguments that discredit and attack their
opponents. This kind of arguments does not attack their
opponents arguments, but more specifically the person, in
this case, the candidate or the party itself. I strongly
suggest reading the article in question to better
understand my reaction. Compared to Gravelle and
Reynolds, I will not attack in this letter these persons itself,
but only the content of their arguments and counterarguments, and this, remaining proper to argumentation.

But before developing this subject, I think it is important to

first talk about arguments that only discredit a person and
which has been used multiple times during Gravelle and
Reynolds war of words. In the business of rhetoric and
argumentation, these arguments are called ad hominem
and are considered a fallacy. Take note that this kind of
attack raises only the opponents defects and not why the
attacker is better than the latter. For example, [] I am
not surprise that Lynne Reynolds is saying that my record
is not good [] because shes just responding to their party
line and Its a matter of record that he has voted against
every initiative that is helping Nickel Belt [].The attacker
brightens his own image not by raising his own personal
values, but only on darkening the image of its opponents.
In other words, they think more about their opponents
defects than their own qualities. If the attacker cannot
raise his own qualities without discrediting its opponents,
it is maybe because he or she has none in mind to say...
Using this kind of argument once is already insulting. To
use it repeatedly: it is verbal hostility.

When someone uses repeatedly, or worst, only this kind of

augments, it provokes anger. Anger is in no way
constructive to a discussion or debate. Verbal hostility is
provoking more anger to the opponents, in this case, the
candidate than helping him to raise constructive
proposition. Anger and verbal hostility have to be avoided
to realize a proper and constructive debate. Gravelle and
Reynolds war of words is no exception. Instead of
handling contrary opinion and criticism constructively,
both candidates retaliate with the same hostile ad hominen
fallacy. Furthermore, anger clouds the clarity of judgments:
anger is therefore a threat to the judgment especially if
that judgment is seeking power. Do we want to vote for a
candidate whose judgment seems to be likely clouded and
influenced by anger? Should we repeat history and allow a
judgment clouded by anger rise to power? These are the
reasons why I consider Gravelle and Reynolds war of
words to be disgraceful, and this, especially when there
are both running for power.

According to only the arguments collected by Tribune,

Reynolds used clearly the ad hominem fallacy 5 times
among 6 arguments. And when Gravelle has the chance to
reply with better and more constructive arguments, he
replies with the same disgraceful kind of fallacy: 6 times
among 8 arguments. An ideal candidate does not need to
retaliate with slurs and by discrediting its opponent. An
ideal candidate is so convinced by its own qualities that he
or she does not feel the need to discredit opposing views.
In other hands, if Gravelle and Reynolds react with
hostility and using fallacies against their opponents, we
have to imagine how they will react, once in power, to the
public. Using repeatedly the ad hominen fallacy is
unconstructive, hostile and even childish. Sadly, take note
that many electoral advertisements on TV and the leaders
debate are also using this kind of hostile approach. This
behavior is not fit for an ideal MP. It gives a sense of their
behavior in Parliament To finish, I would like to complete
Lynne Reynolds last argument: Nickel Belt citizens
deserve better. I have to agree with her on this. Nickel
Belt and Canadians indeed deserve better. They deserve a
MP who has good ideas and argues with constructive
arguments and not with verbal hostility and fallacies. A MP
who focuses more on construction of ideas than on
discrediting the opposition.