In recent months, the Spanish political scene has once again come into the spotlight due to heated debates around citizenship and rights. Statements from leaders of major parties have sparked widespread reaction, but behind the loud slogans, logical fallacies often remain hidden—shaping public opinion and influencing the perception of key issues.
In particular, representatives of the Vox party often use vague formulations when speaking about ‘us’, setting them in opposition to ‘others’. This approach creates an illusion of unity, but in reality it replaces genuine dialogue with emotional imagery. Furthermore, the party appeals to imaginary consensus, asserting that their position is supposedly backed by the majority—without providing evidence for such claims.
Opposition leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo also resorts to ambiguous statements when discussing who ‘deserves’ Spanish citizenship. Such remarks substitute legal criteria with subjective judgments, which may lead to discrimination and a misunderstanding of the very essence of citizenship itself.
The president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, uses fear-based rhetoric in her speeches, referring to lists of doctors refusing to perform abortions as ‘blacklists.’ This tactic aims to provoke an emotional reaction, but does not contribute to a constructive discussion on healthcare issues and women’s rights.
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez tends to use optimistic generalizations, relying on selective data. This creates an impression of prosperity, while the real situation may be much more complex. Such broad assertions distort the picture and hinder an objective assessment of what is happening.
Logical fallacies are common in political speeches. They are difficult to spot, especially when disguised as concern for citizens or national interests. However, the ability to distinguish manipulation from genuine arguments helps not only to better understand events, but also to build a more honest dialogue in society.
It’s important to remember: exposing logical traps doesn’t guarantee absolute truth, but it allows us to avoid superficial judgments and mistaken conclusions. Only a conscious approach to argumentation can strengthen trust between citizens and authorities, and raise the quality of public debate.
Ultimately, the ability to admit mistakes and build arguments on a solid foundation is the key to long-term success in defending one’s views and developing a democratic society.
