DOCSLIB.ORG

Before Name-Calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before Name-Calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation Before Name-calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation Ivan Habernal† Henning Wachsmuth‡ Iryna Gurevych† Benno Stein‡ † Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab (UKP) and Research Training Group AIPHES Department of Computer Science, Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt, Germany www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de www.aiphes.tu-darmstadt.de ‡ Faculty of Media, Bauhaus-Universitat¨ Weimar, Germany <firstname>.<lastname>@uni-weimar.de Abstract Although the ad hominem fallacy has been known since Aristotle, surprisingly there are very Arguing without committing a fallacy is one of few empirical works investigating its properties. the main requirements of an ideal debate. But even when debating rules are strictly enforced While Sahlane(2012) analyzed ad hominem and and fallacious arguments punished, arguers of- other fallacies in several hundred newspaper edi- ten lapse into attacking the opponent by an torials, others usually only rely on few examples, ad hominem argument. As existing research as observed by de Wijze(2002). As Macagno lacks solid empirical investigation of the ty- (2013) concludes, ad hominem arguments should pology of ad hominem arguments as well as be considered as multifaceted and complex strate- their potential causes, this paper fills this gap gies, involving not a simple argument, but sev- by (1) performing several large-scale annota- eral combined tactics. However, such research, to tion studies, (2) experimenting with various neural architectures and validating our work- the best of our knowledge, does not exist. Very ing hypotheses, such as controversy or reason- little is known not only about the feasibility of ableness, and (3) providing linguistic insights ad hominem theories in practical applications (the into triggers of ad hominem using explainable NLP perspective) but also about the dynamics and neural network architectures. triggers of ad hominem (the theoretical counter- part). 1 Introduction This paper investigates the research gap at three Human reasoning is lazy and biased but it per- levels of increasing discourse complexity: ad fectly serves its purpose in the argumentative con- hominem in isolation, direct ad hominem with- text (Mercier and Sperber, 2017). When chal- out dialogical exchange, and ad hominem in large lenged by genuine back-and-forth argumentation, inter-personal discourse context. We asked the humans do better in both generating and evaluat- following research questions. First, what qualita- ing arguments (Mercier and Sperber, 2011). The tive and quantative properties do ad hominem ar- dialogical perspective on argumentation has been guments have in Web debates and how does that reflected in argumentation theory prominently by reflect the common theoretical view (RQ1)? Sec- the pragma-dialectic model of argumentation (van ond, how much of the debate context do we need Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992). Not only for recognizing ad hominem by humans and ma- sketches this theory an ideal normative model of chine learning systems (RQ2)? And finally, what argumentation but also distinguishes the wrong ar- are the actual triggers of ad hominem arguments gumentative moves, fallacies (van Eemeren and and can we predict whether the discussion is go- Grootendorst, 1987). Among the plethora of ing to end up with one (RQ3)? prototypical fallacies, notwithstanding the contro- We tackle these questions by leveraging Web- versy of most taxonomies (Boudry et al., 2015), based argumentation data (Change my View on ad hominem argument is perhaps the most famous Reddit), performing several large-scale annotation one. Arguing against the person is considered studies, and creating a new dataset. We exper- faulty, yet is prevalent in online and offline dis- iment with various neural architectures and ex- course.1 Godwin’s_law), if a discussion goes on long enough, sooner 1According to ‘Godwin’s law’ known from the in- or later someone will compare someone or something to ternet pop-culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Adolf Hitler. 386 Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2018, pages 386–396 New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1 - 6, 2018. c 2018 Association for Computational Linguistics trapolate the trained models to validate our work- 2013; Macagno, 2013; Walton, 2007; Hansen, ing hypotheses. Furthermore, we propose a list 2017; Woods, 2008). We omit examples here of potential linguistic and rhetorical triggers of as these provided in theoretical works or text- ad hominem based on interpreting parameters of books are usually artificial, as already criticized trained neural models.2 This article thus presents by (de Wijze, 2002) or (Boudry et al., 2015). the first NLP work on multi-faceted ad hominem The topic of fallacies, which might be consid- fallacies in genuine dialogical argumentation. We ered as sub-topic of argumentation quality, has re- also release the data and the source code to the re- cently been investigated also in the NLP field. Ex- search community.3 isting works are, however, limited to the mono- logical view (Wachsmuth et al., 2017; Habernal 2 Theoretical background and related and Gurevych, 2016b,a; Stab and Gurevych, 2017) work or they focus primarily on learning fallacy recog- The prevalent view on argumentation emphasizes nition by humans (Habernal et al., 2017, 2018a). its pragmatic goals, such as persuasion and group- Another related NLP sub-field includes abusive based deliberation (van Eemeren et al., 2014), al- language and personal attacks in general. Wulczyn though numerous works have dealt with argument et al.(2017) investigated whether or not Wikipedia as product, that is, treating a single argument and talk page comments are personal attacks and an- its properties in isolation (Toulmin, 1958; Haber- notated 38k instances resulting in a highly skewed nal and Gurevych, 2017). Yet the social role of distribution (only 0.9% were actual attacks). Re- argumentation and its alleged responsibility for garding the participants’ perspective, Jain et al. the very skill of human reasoning explained from (2014) examined principal roles in 80 discussions the evolutionary perspective (Mercier and Sperber, from the Wikipedia: Article for Deletion pages 2017) provide convincing reasons to treat argu- (focusing on stubbornness or ignoredness, among mentation as an inherently dialogical tool. others) and found several typical roles, including The observation that some arguments are in ‘rebels’, ‘voices’, or ‘idiots’. In contrast to our fact ‘deceptions in disguise’ was made already data under investigation (Change My View de- by Aristotle (Aristotle and Kennedy (transla- bates), Wikipedia talk pages do not adhere to strict tor), 1991), for which the term fallacy has been argumentation rules with manual moderation and adopted. Leaving the controversial typology of have a different pragmatic purpose. fallacies aside (Hamblin, 1970; van Eemeren and Reddit as a source platform has also been used Grootendorst, 1987; Boudry et al., 2015), the ad in other relevant works. Saleem et al.(2016) de- hominem argument is addressed in most theories. tected hateful speech on Reddit by exploiting par- Ad hominem argumentation relies on the strat- ticular sub-communities to automatically obtain egy of attacking the opponent and some feature training data. Wang et al.(2016) experimented of the opponent’s character instead of the counter- with an unsupervised neural model to cluster so- arguments (Tindale, 2007). With few exceptions, cial roles on sub-reddits dedicated to computer the following five sub-types of ad hominem are games. Zhang et al.(2017) proposed a set of nine prevalent in the literature: abusive ad hominem comment-level dialogue act categories and anno- (a pure attack on the character of the opponent), tated 9k threads with 100k comments and built a tu quoque ad hominem (essentially analogous to CRF classifier for dialogue act labeling. Unlike the “He did it first” defense of a three-year-old these works which were not related to argumenta- in a sandbox), circumstantial ad hominem (the tion, Tan et al.(2016) examined persuasion strate- “practice what you preach” attack and accusation gies on Change My View using word overlap fea- of hypocrisy), bias ad hominem (the attacked op- tures. In contrast to our work, they focused solely ponent has a hidden agenda), and guilt by as- on the successful strategies with delta-awarded sociation (associating the opponent with some- posts. Using the same dataset, Musi(2017) re- body with a low credibility) (Schiappa and Nordin, cently studied concession in argumentation. 2An attempt to address the plea for thinking about prob- lems, cognitive science, and the details of human language 3 Data (Manning, 2015). 3https://github.com/UKPLab/ Change My View (CMV) is an online ‘place to naacl2018-before-name-calling-habernal-et-al post an opinion you accept [...] in an effort to un- 387 derstand other perspectives on the issue’, in other words an online platform for ‘good-faith’ argu- mentation hosted on Reddit.4 A user posts a sub- mission (also called original post(er); OP) and other participants provide arguments to change the OP’s view, forming a typical tree-form Web dis- cussion. A special feature of CMV is that the OP acknowledges convincing arguments by giving a delta point (∆). Unlike the vast majority of in- ternet discussion forums, CMV enforces obeying strict rules (such as no ‘low effort’ posts, or accus- Figure 1: ‘No discussion after ad hominem.’ Dis- ing of being unwilling to change view) whose vi- tribution of the number of comments before the first olation results into deleting the comment by mod- ad hominem is committed proportional to the thread erators. These formal requirements of an ideal de- length. bate with the notion of violating rules correspond to incorrect moves in critical discussion in the nor- them start attacking ‘out of blue’, without any pre- mative pragma-dialectic theory (van Eemeren and vious interaction in the thread. On the other hand, Grootendorst, 1987). Thus, violating the rule of 11% ad hominem authors write at least one ‘nor- ‘not being rude or hostile’ is equivalent to com- mal’ argument in the thread (we found one outlier mitting ad hominem fallacy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media
    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • • Today: Language, Ambiguity, Vagueness, Fallacies
    6060--207207 • Today: language, ambiguity, vagueness, fallacies LookingLooking atat LanguageLanguage • argument: involves the attempt of rational persuasion of one claim based on the evidence of other claims. • ways in which our uses of language can enhance or degrade the quality of arguments: Part I: types and uses of definitions. Part II: how the improper use of language degrades the "weight" of premises. AmbiguityAmbiguity andand VaguenessVagueness • Ambiguity: a word, term, phrase is ambiguous if it has 2 or more well-defined meaning and it is not clear which of these meanings is to be used. • Vagueness: a word, term, phrase is vague if it has more than one possible and not well-defined meaning and it is not clear which of these meanings is to be used. • [newspaper headline] Defendant Attacked by Dead Man with Knife. • Let's have lunch some time. • [from an ENGLISH dept memo] The secretary is available for reproduction services. • [headline] Father of 10 Shot Dead -- Mistaken for Rabbit • [headline] Woman Hurt While Cooking Her Husband's Dinner in a Horrible Manner • advertisement] Jack's Laundry. Leave your clothes here, ladies, and spend the afternoon having a good time. • [1986 headline] Soviet Bloc Heads Gather for Summit. • He fed her dog biscuits. • ambiguous • vague • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous AndAnd now,now, fallaciesfallacies • What are fallacies or what does it mean to reason fallaciously? • Think in terms of the definition of argument … • Fallacies Involving Irrelevance • or, Fallacies of Diversion • or, Sleight-of-Hand Fallacies • We desperately need a nationalized health care program. Those who oppose it think that the private sector will take care of the needs of the poor.
    [Show full text]
  • Example of Name Calling Fallacy
    Example Of Name Calling Fallacy Unreturning Lew sometimes dry-rot his eclectics naething and bead so stoically! Disheartened Rey still internationalizing: clostridialantistatic andDerrin hydrologic aromatise Napoleon her abnormalities spend quite widens contractedly while Alexander but discommoding insnaring hersome gutturals perinephrium fearfully. alarmedly. Einsteinian and What before the fallacy of deductive reasoning? Name calling the stab of derogatory language or words that recruit a negative connotation hopes that invite audience will reject that person increase the idea where the basis. Fallacious Reasoning and Progaganda Techniques SPH. If this example of examples of free expression exploits the names to call our emotions, called prejudicial language are probably every comparison is a complicated by extremely common. There by various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. Fallacies and Propaganda TIP Sheets Butte College. For example the first beep of an AdHominem on memories page isn't name calling. Title his Name-calling Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web. Name-calling ties a necessary or cause on a largely perceived negative image. In contract of logical evidence this fallacy substitutes examples from. A red herring is after that misleads or distracts from superior relevant more important making It wound be beautiful a logical fallacy or for literary device that leads readers or audiences toward god false conclusion. And fallacious arguments punished arguers of- ten grand into. Logical Fallacies Examples EnglishCompositionOrg. Example calling members of the National Rifle Association trigger happy drawing attention was from their. Example Ignore what Professor Schiff says about the origins of childhood Old Testament. Such a fantastic chef, headline writing as a valid to call david, and political or kinds of allegiance of? Look for Logical Fallacies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ad Hominem Fallacy
    Critical Thinking – Handout 3 – The Ad Hominem Fallacy Testimony is like an arrow shot from a long bow; the force of it depends on the strength of the hand that draws it. Argument is like an arrow from a cross-bow, which is equal force though shot by a child. –Samuel Johnson, A Life At this point, we have several fundamental critical thinking skills (CTSs) at our disposal: CTS #1: the ability to identify passages of text and determine whether or not they are arguments, CTS #2: the ability to determine whether an argument is valid/invalid and strong/weak by using the imagination test. CTS #3: the ability to specify the exact conclusion of the argument. CTS#4: the ability to identify which premises (reasons) are relevant and which are irrelevant to a specific conclusion. CTS#5: the ability to determine how different premises relate to each other in their support of the conclusion (diagramming). The next set of CTSs will focus more on the evaluation of different arguments. CTS#6: the ability to identify different fallacies as they occur in everyday arguments and distinguish these fallacies from similar-looking but non-fallacious arguments. 1. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS & AD HOMINEM FALLACIES A fallacy is an error in reasoning. We say that someone’s reasoning or argument is “fallacious” when they argue incorrectly from the premises to the conclusion. A large portion of critical thinking has to do with the description, investigation, and taxonomy of different fallacies. One important kind of fallacy is the ad hominem1 fallacy. To get clear on what an ad hominem fallacy is, we first need to define what an “ad hominem statement” and “ad hominem argument” is: An ad hominem statement is any (positive, negative, or neutral) statement made about an individual.
    [Show full text]
  • MORE PSEUDOREASONING OR FALLACIES AD HOMINEM in All Ad
    CHAPTER 6: MORE PSEUDOREASONING OR FALLACIES AD HOMINEM In all ad hominem fallacies we attack the speaker rather than the claim. Personal Attack We commit the fallacy of PERSONAL ATTACK AD HOMINEM when we try to discredit a claim by personally attacking the speaker. Jack said that bilingual education has been a failure, but what does he know? He’s totally clueless. Circumstantial Ad Hominem We commit the fallacy of CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM when we try to discredit a claim by attacking the speaker based upon their circumstances. My brother says you always should give a 20% tip, but he works in the food industry Pseudorefutation We commit the fallacy of PSEUDOREFUTATION when we attack the credibility of a speaker by accusing them of having been inconsistent in some way. Maria said that NPR is a success, but I don’t believe it because she used to be against it. Poisoning the well We commit the fallacy of poisoning the well when we say something to discredit somebody before they have even made a claim. For example, Karen Horney isn’t nuts. Really. GENETIC FALLACY Someone commits the GENETIC fallacy when they challenge a claim based on its history or source (where the source isn’t an individual, in which case it would be ad hominem). The FDA says that blue food coloring is safe too eat but I don’t trust anything the FDA says. FALSE DILEMMA We commit the fallacy of FALSE DILEMMA when we wrongly see a situation as having only two alternatives, when it has more.
    [Show full text]
  • Propaganda Explained
    Propaganda Explained Definitions of Propaganda, (and one example in a court case) revised 10/21/14 created by Dale Boozer (reprinted here by permission) The following terms are defined to a student of the information age understand the various elements of an overall topic that is loosely called “Propaganda”. While some think “propaganda” is just a government thing, it is also widely used by many other entities, such as corporations, and particularly by attorney’s arguing cases before judges and specifically before juries. Anytime someone is trying to persuade one person, or a group of people, to think something or do something it could be call propagandaif certain elements are present. Of course the term “spin” was recently created to define the act of taking a set of facts and distorting them (or rearranging them) to cover mistakes or shortfalls of people in public view (or even in private situations such as being late for work). But “spin” and “disinformation” are new words referring to an old, foundational, concept known as propaganda. In the definitions below, borrowed from many sources, I have tried to craft the explanations to fit more than just a government trying to sell its people on something, or a political party trying to recruit contributors or voters. When you read these you will see the techniques are more universal. (Source, Wikipedia, and other sources, with modification). Ad hominem A Latin phrase that has come to mean attacking one’s opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments. i.e. a personal attack to diffuse an argument for which you have no appropriate answer.
    [Show full text]
  • Ad Hominem Arguments As Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority
    Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority MOTI MIZRAHI Department of Philosophy Hunter College CUNY 695 Park Ave. New York, NY 10065 Email: [email protected] Abstract: In this paper, I argue that Résumé: ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. More explicitly, in certain cases of practical reasoning, the cir- cumstances of a person are relevant to whether or not the conclusion should be accepted. This occurs, I suggest, when a person gives advice to others or prescribes certain courses of action but fails to follow her own advice or act in accordance with her own pre- scriptions. This is not an instance of a fallacious tu quoque provided that such circumstantial ad hominem ar- guments are construed as rebuttals to appeals (administrative) authority (of expertise), or so I argue. Keywords: abusive ad hominem, administrative authority, appeal to authority, argument from authority, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad verecun- diam, circumstantial ad hominem, tu quoque 1. Introduction In most textbooks, arguments against the person (argumentum ad hominem) are considered fallacious for the most part. The phrase ad hominem is commonly used to name the fallacy of attacking the person who makes a certain claim rather than the claim itself. For instance, according to Copi and Cohen (1998, p. 166), the phrase ad hominem names a “fallacious attack in which the thrust is di- rected, not at a conclusion, but at the person who asserts or defends it.” According to Copi and Cohen, the ad hominem fallacy has two major forms: abusive and circumstantial.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies of Argument
    RHETORIC Fallacies What are fallacies? Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others' writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. The examples below are a sample of the most common fallacies. Common Fallacies: Emotional—​The fallacies below appeal to inappropriately evoked emotions instead of using logic, facts, and evidence to support claims. ● Ad Hominem (Argument to the Man):​ attacking a person's character instead of the content of that person's argument. Not simply name­calling, this argument suggests that the argument is flawed because of its source. For example, David Horowitz as quoted in the ​Daily Pennsylvanian​: “Anyone who says that about me [that he’s a racist bigot] is a Nazi.” ● Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument From Ignorance):​ concluding that something is true since you can't prove it is false. For example "God must exist, since no one can demonstrate that she does not exist." ● Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (Appeal To Pity):​ appealing to a person's unfortunate circumstance as a way of getting someone to accept a conclusion. For example, "You need to pass me in this course, since I'll lose my scholarship if you don't." ● ​Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument To The People):​ going along with the crowd in support of a conclusion. For example, "The majority of Americans think we should have military operations in Afghanistan; therefore, it’s the right thing to do." ● ​Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to False Authority): ​appealing to a popular figure who is not an authority in that area.
    [Show full text]
  • Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies
    Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies 1 Learning Outcomes In this lesson we will: 1.Define logical fallacy using the SEE-I. 2.Understand and apply the concept of relevance. 3.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of relevance. 4.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of insufficient evidence. 2 What is a logical fallacy? Complete the SEE-I. S = A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. E = E = I = 3 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o9VE5tseuFk/T5FSHiJnu7I/AAAAAAAABIY/Ws7iCn-wJNU/s1600/Logical+Fallacy.JPG The Concept of Relevance The concept of relevance: a statement for or against another statement. A statement is relevant to a claim (i.e. another statement or premise) if it provides some reason or evidence for thinking the claim is either true of false. Three ways a statement can be relevant: 1. A statement is positively relevant to a claim if it counts in favor of the claim. 2. A statement is negatively relevant to a claim if it counts against the claim. 3. A statement is logically irrelevant to a claim if it counts neither for or against the claim. Two observations concerning the concept of relevance. 1. Whether a statement is relevant to a claim usually depends on the context in which the statement is made. 2. A statement can be relevant to a claim even if the claim is false. 5 Fallacies of Relevance • Personal attack or ad hominem • Scare tactic • Appeal to pity • Bandwagon argument • Strawman • Red herring • Equivocation http://www.professordarnell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fallacies.jpg • Begging the question 6 When a person rejects another person’s argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the argument of claim he or she commits an ad hominem fallacy or personal attack.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Gone Wrong with the Contemporary Political
    International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 10 • No. 2 • February 2019 doi:10.30845/ijbss.v10n2p5 What’s gone wrong with the Contemporary Political Communication? Alessandro Prato Professor of Rhetoric and persuasive languages Department of Political and Cognitive Social Sciences (DISPOC) University of Siena, Siena Italy Abstract The paper aims to investigate the mechanisms of incorrect and misleading reasoning with particular reference to the argumentative fallacies – ideas which many people believe to be true, but which is in fact false because it is based on incorrect information or reasoning - widely present today in information and communication policies, highlighting the strategies used to influence the behaviour of people and direct the formation of opinions in accordance with guidelines functional to systems of power. Keywords: argumentation, manipulation, propaganda, fallacies, rhetoric 1. Introduction The present article aims to illustratesome problematic aspects of contemporary political discourse and how public language is losing its power, and how an ominous gap is opening between the governed and those who govern.In particular we will examine and discussthese topics: 1. Information and political communication today often use the argumentative fallacies, that is a incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning, or an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid;2. the strategies used to influence public opinion exploit the vast potential of emotional factors, which always play a central role in any kind of debate, instead the factor of rationality is less important. The analysis is conducted using the tools of rhetoric, the branch of philosophy that Aristotle defined as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Rhet.
    [Show full text]
  • Ad Hominem Fallacy Examples Donald Trump
    Ad Hominem Fallacy Examples Donald Trump Presentationism and conic Ulick economized her demolishment ohmmeter quadrupled and headreach Saunderszoologically. stipulate When hisMarve verligte platted fidges his folkmootyeomanly, sparging but Himyarite not sudden Rad neverenough, begs is Emmeryso betweentimes. divisionism? But abortion is made these ideas survive and firm Equivocation is a type of ambiguity in which a single word or phrase has two or more distinct meanings, transfer blame to others, as they often show how much the product is being enjoyed by large groups of people. Trump has also awarded Presidential Medals of Freedom to former Sen. Or a young, comments like these are reminding some people of an old Soviet tactic known as whataboutism. Some topics are on motherhood and some are not. The green cheese causes compulsive buying is when it is. While such characterizations as the one above reflect part of the reason why informal fallacies prove powerful and intellectually seductive it suffers from two weaknesses. Kennedy before he is this is an ad hominem fallacy examples donald trump uses cookies that donald trump is true than a few examples. Guilt By Association Fallacy, and music and dance and so many other avenues to help them express what has happened to them in their lives during this horrific year. And now, one of the most common is the Ad Hominem fallacy, other times the wholepat assumption proves false resulting in a fallacy of composition. If we are to make informed judgments about the candidates, which focused on. Knowing and studying fallacies is important because this will help people avoid committing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Persuasive Logic & Reasoning
    Persuasive Logic & Reasoning Steven R. Van Hook, PhD Reference Textbook Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, by Howard Kahane and Nancy M. Cavender. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning, 2013. ISBN-10: 1133942288 Persuasive Logic & Reasoning Unit 1 Foundational Terms & Concepts Steven R. Van Hook, PhD Let’s develop our reasoning skills Logic Clear reasoning Effective argument Fallacy analysis Coherence Problem solving Intellect Persuasion Courage Induction Confidence Deduction Strength Persuasive Logic & Reason Unit 1 Steven R. Van Hook, PhD GOOD & BAD REASONING The Argument Structure Premises and Conclusions: 1) Identical twins often have different test scores (premise 1) 2) Identical twins inherit the same genes (premise 2) 3) So environment must play some sort of part in determining IQ (claim or conclusion) Exercise: Identify the Premises and Conclusions Statement: “It is difficult to gauge the pain felt by animals because pain is subjective and animals cannot talk.” Premise 1: Pain is subjective; Premise 2: Animals can’t communicate; Conclusion: We cannot measure the pain animals feel If the premises are faulty, the conclusion may be faulty. Argument Structure 1) It’s always wrong to kill a human being (true or false premise?) 2) Capital punishment kills a human being (true or false premise?) 3) Capital punishment is wrong (good or bad conclusion?) Note:∴ means ‘therefore’ ∴ Reasoning Reasoning: “Inferring from what we already know or believe to something else.” Examples: “It stands to reason that because of this, then that …” “It’s only logical *this* will happen, because *that* happened before …” Argument & Exposition Argument: One or more premises offered in support of a claim or conclusion Exposition: A statement or rhetorical discourse intended to give information or offer an explanation Is it Argument or Exposition? “My summer vacation was spent working in Las Vegas.
    [Show full text]