One would have thought that a campaign led by the former vice president of the United States would be filled less with gaffes and more with overwhelming support from Democrats. At least that's what the right claims. They argue that his age and his mistakes deemed him incapable of running for commander in chief, and one would expect the left to come to his aid. Yet it seems that Biden has been put to the test by his own party. As of now, Biden is being attacked in the press from both sides with a ferocity that is usually reserved for President Trump. David Frech's article mentions that Biden is not running against the success of the past, but against the arrogance of the present. So now the question arises: Is Biden really competent enough to run for president? Both sides have a lot to say about this. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Since the start of Biden's campaign, journalists have flocked to the potential president from all sides. This, in turn, caused articles on both sides to be written at Mach speed trying to catch up on the Biden train. The two opposing articles mentioned in the article were both written by conservatives. However, the main and important difference was that one believed Biden was incompetent and the other the opposite. So, now the reader can come to the conclusion that Biden must be doing something right to appeal to conservative audiences. That Biden can whip up such a storm that he attracts journalists to the sides of his campaign demonstrates his ability to remain relevant despite the age gap between him and the young reporters who follow him. This appears to be the argument made by David French in his article for Biden. It highlights his success within the Democratic party and labels Biden's shortcomings as moral flaws that victimize the average everyday person. While Kevin D.Williamson's article breaks down Biden's mental state down to the last drop of sanity left. Williamson writes “Biden is incompetent to be president” and then proceeds to use a lot of pathos to make his case. Before reading David French's article, one must have the mandate that Biden is actually attacked by his own party. The problem with this mandate is the fact that Biden is a very strong candidate and as the election approaches these attacks are likely to occur. Most members of the Democratic party see Biden as the only threat given his history as vice president of the United States with the Obama administration. Candidates can be expected to unite in the face of a major threat. French's article begins by mentioning the Democratic Party's successes behind Biden, but fails to point out that the same victories the party achieved came with a huge amount of controversy. This is a blatant attempt to cherry pick evidence. By setting the first paragraph to be strong, he chooses what he reveals to the reader and what he keeps hidden. In the first few lines it mentions the Violent Crime Act of 1994. The paragraph explains the law, provides statistics, and states that the law “has not played a material role in mass incarceration.” However, a quick fact check reveals that French conveniently forgets to mention that the law has had amplified effects on mass incarceration in the United States. The bill passed with bipartisan support, with the Clintons mentioning that the law was well received by the African American community. leader. However, an editorial in the New YorkTimes called this “selective hearing” of what African American leaders were asking for and points out that members of the Congressional Black Caucus asked for provisions in the bill that were left out.” The French line up the 1994 law to make it seem like it was well received, but the reality turned out to be very different. French then continues: “First, it passed with overwhelming Democratic support (including a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus), meaning that most of its current critics – had they been in office at the time – would have also voted in favor of the bill." The paragraph screams of errors, but the most important ones are a question and a red herring. First, there is no real evidence that the current Black Caucus would vote for the bill. No statements have been made regarding this matter. French inserts the statement into the paragraph to make it appear that Biden still holds support in the Caucus. Second, the red herring is the fact that the French seem to forget that the parts of the law requested by the Black Caucus were never implemented in the actual bill. Toss the fish among readers to force a change of perspective and, perhaps, make them forget that the bill left out more than it should have. A quick check reveals that “politicians have emphasized Black support for greater punishment and surveillance, without acknowledging accompanying calls to redirect power and economic resources toward low-income minority communities,” according to the article, written by three Ivy League professors of African history and science. American Studies. “When black people ask for better policing, lawmakers tend to listen more instead.” (Lussenhop 1) The French continue to insist that the crime rate decreased during the Clinton administration thanks to the proposed law. “Second, the Clinton administration led to a truly historic decrease in the crime rate. Yes, this decrease has many causes, but it is still true that violent crimes have decreased, property crimes have decreased, and tens of thousands of men and women live today because their cities are much, much safer than they used to be. were when Clinton took power. office." French sets this paragraph in such a way as to give most of the credit to the 1994 law. However, a BBC article on the 1994 law states: “By the time the Crime Bill was passed, violent crime had begun to decline in the United States. It will continue to collapse throughout the 1990s before leveling off in the early 2000s. Giving credence to a single piece of federal legislation is a stretch, Mauer says, and besides, the White House should have considered the decrease in crime rates that was already occurring when he drafted the bill.”(Lussenhop 1) Evidence chosen specifically to satisfy the claim that French is making However, he is keen to point out that Biden was quite important to the success of the party. He calls out the Democrats stating: “It is one thing to attack Biden's vote on the war in Iraq. This was the policy of the Republican administration; faced substantial democratic opposition; now even Republicans have largely rejected their own president's big gamble. It is another thing to reject the democratic results of the recent past." The part about Biden voting on the Iraq war is rushed and is no longer mentioned in the article. He doesn't mention that Biden's vote on war may not have pleased others on the same platform. The red herring in this is that French distracts the reader from the votemaking him believe that it was a Republican policy and not Biden's. He then closes his article by calling out Joe Biden's most significant accomplishments and telling readers that "his successes are now considered not just failures, but moral flaws." An attempt to use pathos, to evoke or at least try to arouse pity in the reader for Biden. French sets up his paragraphs well. He provides sources for everything he says and overall makes a good argument for Bide. It's hard to support politicians, but French does really well. Now let's analyze Williamson's article. It begins with the words “there are two possible explanations for Joe Biden's inability to tell the truth about things: one is that his mind is failing him, the other is that it is his honor.” This is a simple question, ad hominem and non sequitur, all wrapped up in the opening paragraph. He charges that Joe Biden cannot tell the truth at all and provides no support for it. He then attacks Biden's honor by saying his honor and his mind are failing him and finally gives no concrete reason why Biden might be unfit for the presidency, other than calling him incompetent. Finally, he provides an example of why Biden should not run. for the presidency. He cites a Washington Post article that basically says that “detailed by the Washington Post, Biden made up a story in which he, as vice president, showed personal courage and heroism in going to a dangerous war zone to recognize the service of an American soldier which had stood out in a particularly dramatic way." Cherry picking at its best, as a Snopes article on the same topic refutes the example Williamson mentions. Snopes claims the story is true, contradicting details exposed by Williamson to mislead readers into thinking Biden is a liar. Williamson then writes: "The evidence points more to a moral disability than a mental disability, as Biden has a long career of lying about just this sort of thing. But he provides no evidence. Other than that Biden messed up key details of a meeting, Williamson provides no evidence that Biden may suffer from a disability. Then he goes off on a tangent about Biden lying about the deaths of his wife and daughter in an accident caused by a drunk driver. “This is a pure fabrication and a slander against the man who was behind the wheel of that truck and who was haunted by the episode until the end of his days Imagine yourself in the position of that man's family, whose natural sympathy for Biden's loss must be complicated from outrage at his persistent lies about relevant events.” The only part Biden messed up was the drunk driver part. The entire paragraph about the accident is a non sequitur. Why should the person who actually caused the accident feel bad if they are called drunk more than 10 years after the accident? There was no honor in the truck driver who killed Biden's wife and daughter, but Willaimson does his best to try to draw out the driver's qualities to the reader and make Biden the bad person in this scenario. This is a pathetic appeal to pathos and does no one any favors. The reasoning defies all logic and it doesn't matter what angle you look at it from. Most of this article is filled with hasty generalizations in an attempt to get the reader to agree with him. He concludes his article with a few words for Democrats: “Joe Biden has exhausted whatever presumption of goodwill or benefit of the doubt we might have given him over the past 46 years. He had the chance to prove that he was a man capable of honor, integrity and honesty – and he failed that test every time. If.