Meredith Kressen
Bobby Howard
PHIL 2203-001
Fallacies in Popular Culture In 2001, Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert were both cast members of the hit television show, The Daily Show, which airs on Comedy Central. During one of their segments titled “Even Stephen” the two poked fun at each other while either arguing extremely for or extremely against a certain topic. The video I have chosen to analyze was an argument regarding the topic of a patient’s bill of rights. Although there are many recognizable fallacies committed in this argument, and even though they are purposefully made for a humorous effect, I will only be focusing on one example of a fallacy committed. One of the most apparent fallacies in this video segment is the red herring …show more content…
They are in a headlock over whether there should be a shift in the balance of power, and if either large law firms or HMO’s should hold the majority of the power. Although there are many key fallacies committed such as slippery slope and begging the question, they are nowhere near as important as the red herring fallacy. Colbert originally brings up the topic of God in a passing comment, however when Carell casually makes fun of the idea of a divine justice in a “white beard” comforting the dying, this opens up the opportunity Colbert needs to distract Carell. Carell states that there is no God, and that they need the justice of lawyers looking out for the patient’s needs. Colbert takes particular offense to this, and then spends the next two and a half minutes questioning Carell on how could there not be an existence of a God. Carell notices that Colbert has gotten off topic by playing the religion card, however Colbert continues throwing difficult to answer philosophical questions at him, such as “Who knew you and loved you, even before the fires of creation?” while also stating that there is a much deeper reality than what they are arguing over. After continued distraction, Carell ultimately caves in and agrees that there could possibly be a God. Colbert then takes Steve Carell’s admission of the existence of a God and how the patient’s bill of rights is not as …show more content…
Although this video is scripted, it is important to note that this fallacy does occur real debates, journals, news articles, and much more. Colbert easily diverted Carell’s attention away from the original subject at hand, as the topic of religion is very easy way to engage the subject in a completely different and time consuming alternative argument. Colbert played both on Carell’s logic he had for the subject but also on his emotions. I believe that if this argument were to be played out on a non-scripted subject it would have effective, although it might have been a bit more heated and
Bobby Howard
PHIL 2203-001
Fallacies in Popular Culture In 2001, Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert were both cast members of the hit television show, The Daily Show, which airs on Comedy Central. During one of their segments titled “Even Stephen” the two poked fun at each other while either arguing extremely for or extremely against a certain topic. The video I have chosen to analyze was an argument regarding the topic of a patient’s bill of rights. Although there are many recognizable fallacies committed in this argument, and even though they are purposefully made for a humorous effect, I will only be focusing on one example of a fallacy committed. One of the most apparent fallacies in this video segment is the red herring …show more content…
They are in a headlock over whether there should be a shift in the balance of power, and if either large law firms or HMO’s should hold the majority of the power. Although there are many key fallacies committed such as slippery slope and begging the question, they are nowhere near as important as the red herring fallacy. Colbert originally brings up the topic of God in a passing comment, however when Carell casually makes fun of the idea of a divine justice in a “white beard” comforting the dying, this opens up the opportunity Colbert needs to distract Carell. Carell states that there is no God, and that they need the justice of lawyers looking out for the patient’s needs. Colbert takes particular offense to this, and then spends the next two and a half minutes questioning Carell on how could there not be an existence of a God. Carell notices that Colbert has gotten off topic by playing the religion card, however Colbert continues throwing difficult to answer philosophical questions at him, such as “Who knew you and loved you, even before the fires of creation?” while also stating that there is a much deeper reality than what they are arguing over. After continued distraction, Carell ultimately caves in and agrees that there could possibly be a God. Colbert then takes Steve Carell’s admission of the existence of a God and how the patient’s bill of rights is not as …show more content…
Although this video is scripted, it is important to note that this fallacy does occur real debates, journals, news articles, and much more. Colbert easily diverted Carell’s attention away from the original subject at hand, as the topic of religion is very easy way to engage the subject in a completely different and time consuming alternative argument. Colbert played both on Carell’s logic he had for the subject but also on his emotions. I believe that if this argument were to be played out on a non-scripted subject it would have effective, although it might have been a bit more heated and