No to candidates “war of words” François 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

opponent’s 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 counter-

arguments, 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 opponent’s 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 she’s just responding to their party

line” and “It’s 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.