Argumentation or Fallacy: A Rhetorical Study of For and Against Debates of the Islamic Consultative Assembly’s Members

The speech delivered by Iran Islamic Consultative Assembly Members is one of the most effective means they employ to get the MP’s to approve or reject the proposals made in the parliament. One way to convince the audience in a discursive process is to resort to argumentation. If argumentation, as a key point in the rhetoric to achieve the highest degree of persuasion, deviates from the path of reasoning, recourse will be made to fallacy. This study examined persuasive topoi in the for and against speeches delivered during parliamentary proposal review and vote of confidence sessions for the proposed cabinet of Iran twelfth government. To this end, instances of robust arguments replaced by fallacies were identified by means of rhetorical sophistications. The findings show that although the use of such devices as magnifying, minimizing, highlighting, and marginalizing may lead to the initial and immediate persuasion of the audience, this would not guarantee the eligibility of the ministers who win parliament's approval during the vote of confidence process.