When you dig just a bit into the facts of a situation like this, you soon learn the pathetic truth: a typical classroom in an American school is run by an infantile teacher who is less mature than some of his or her students.
As this child is not a voter, does an opinion matter? Yes? No? Wouldn’t teaching a class be more effective if the class discussion leaned towards the process of government elections rather than attacking any particular candidate?
Why wouldn’t “educators” want to elaborate on the civics, history, and philosophy associated with our system of government?
Per the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy (a partial list of fallacies)
[Quote] The controversy here is the extent to which it is better to teach students what Schwartz calls “the critical instrument” than to teach the fallacy-label approach. Is the fallacy-label approach better for some kinds of fallacies than others? If so, which others?
Another controversy involves the relationship between the fields of logic and rhetoric. In the field of rhetoric, the primary goal is to persuade the audience. The audience is not going to be persuaded by an otherwise good argument with true premises unless they believe those premises are true. Philosophers tend to de-emphasize this difference between rhetoric and informal logic, and they concentrate on arguments that should fail to convince the ideally rational reasoner rather than on arguments that are likely not to convince audiences who hold certain background beliefs. Given specific pedagogical goals, how pedagogically effective is this de-emphasis?
Advertising in magazines and on television is designed to achieve visual persuasion. And a hug or the fanning of fumes from freshly baked donuts out onto the sidewalk are occasionally used for visceral persuasion. There is some controversy among researchers in informal logic as to whether the reasoning involved in this nonverbal persuasion can always be assessed properly by the same standards that are used for verbal reasoning.[Unquote]