Strategies of Denial in Amr Moussa and Abul Futouh Presidential Debate

Abstract

This paper investigates the various strategies of denial employed by presidential candidates Abdel Moneim Abul Futouh and Amr Moussa in the first televised presidential debate in the history of Egypt and the Arab world. Based on van Dijk's model of analyzing denials of racism (1992) and van Eemeren et al.’s classification of the fallacies of argumentation (1996), the study analyzes the linguistic constructions correlated with denial as a form of managing accusations that is capable of moving the audience into supporting the opinions and ideologies expressed by the speaker. The study concludes that both candidates have similarities and differences in using denial strategies. Both debaters rely heavily on ‘act denial’ as the main vehicle for denying accusations. Moussa, however, differs from Abul Futouh in his dependence on argumentum ad hominem in its abusive as well as tu quoque variants. Abul Futouh, instead, employs goal denial and intention denial to manage his opponent’s accusations