Argumentos políticos a examen: el uso de falacias en el discurso parlamentario español

Objectives: The study aims to analyze how fallacies are used in political discourse to manipulate public opinion, focusing on a parliamentary investiture debate in Spain. It seeks to identify the types of fallacies employed and evaluate their impact on the quality of the debate and social cohesion. Design/Methodology: A qualitative study was conducted using content analysis techniques. The discourse of two parliamentary leaders during an investiture debate was examined. The software ATLAS.ti was used to code and classify the interventions according to their argumentative validity. Results: A total of 17 fallacies were identified across 30 interventions, highlighting a balanced use of fallacious strategies by both speakers. Ad hominem and “straw man” fallacies were the most frequently employed, used to discredit opponents and oversimplify complex issues. A recurring use of appeals to the majority (ad populum) was also observed, aimed at legitimising political positions. These tactics reveal a trend towards the emotional manipulation of the audience, to the detriment of rational argumentation. Originality/Contribution: The study highlights the prevalence of fallacies in contemporary parliamentary discourse, as well as their role in social polarization and the distortion of political debate. The research emphasizes the importance of a critical analysis of political language to understand how truth is manipulated in democratic contexts, contributing to the debate on the quality and legitimacy of current political communication.