DOCSLIB.ORG

Bingo Card 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bingo Card 5 2020 Presidential-Debate B I NGO Appeal to Porcinocephalic Argumentum self-evident Psittacism Rodomontade refusal ad invidiam (44) (45) (43) truth (17) (5) Argumentum Choplogic Ipse dixit Argumentum ad Argumentum ad ignorantiam (26) (37) misericordiam ad hominem (19) (16) (15) Illeism Hyperbole Argumentum Erotesis ad crumenam (36) (34) Free (32) Space (14) Inoratio Argument Sloganeering Epiplexis Tapinosis elenchi from normality (46) (28) (47) (35) (7) Appeal to the Caconym Argumentum Argumentum Asteism common (25) ad judicium in terrorem (24) (18) (23) person (6) For entertainment purposes only. 2020 Presidential-Debate BINGO by Bryan A. Garner As you watch the candidates Tuesday, pay attention to their modes of ar- gument. Try to identify as many modes and rhetorical devices as you can. Some but not all of these arguments are fallacious. Each statement you isolate can qualify in only one category. Here are your categories: 1. Apophasis /uh-POF-uh-sis/: mentioning 11. Argumentum ad baculum: depending on something while disclaiming to mention it. (“I physical force. (“The military will intervene if I won’t even mention the lie you told last week decide it’s necessary.”) about . .”) 12. Argumentum ad antiquitatem: the wisdom of 2. Aporia: professing not to know where to the ancients. (“Our forebears were much wiser begin. (“I don’t even know where to start in than people today are, and they said [X].”) answering that point.”) 13. Argumentum ad captandum: appealing to the 3. Appeal to definition: use of dictionary defi- audience’s emotions. (“Most of us know people nitions. (“The dictionary defines [milksop, who have died unnecessarily.”) autocrat, sociopath] as X. It’s clear that you fit 14. Argumentum ad crumenam: appealing to that definition.”) your pocketbook. (“You’ll have more money in 4. Appeal to divinity: invoking what God thinks. the bank if you vote for me.”) (“Christ himself would disapprove of what 15. Argumentum ad hominem: based on dispar- you’re suggesting.”) agement of the opponent. (“Everyone knows 5. Appeal to self-evident truth: the claim that you have no morals whatsoever.”) everybody knows something that many doubt. 16. Argumentum ad ignorantiam: based on the (“Everybody knows that your entire staff de- adversary’s ignorance. (“You don’t even know spises you.”) basic facts about [science, China, etc.].”) 6. Appeal to the common person: I’m a regular 17. Argumentum ad invidiam: appealing to guy like you. (“My fellow Americans, I under- hatred or prejudice. (“If you’re in control, the stand what you want. I’m one of you.”) [hated group] will be in control.”) 7. Argument from normality: appeal to stan- 18. Argumentum ad judicium: appealing to per- dards or norms. (“You have violated every tinent proofs. (Examples include marshaling standard of decent behavior.”) valid evidence and sticking to the point.) 8. Argumentum a simili: argument by analogy. 19. Argumentum ad misericordiam: appealing to (“If you can’t handle X, then just think what pity. (“I’ve been through more hardship than will happen if [Y].”) any other politician in memory.”) 9. Argumentum ab auctoritate: appealing to au- 20. Argumentum ad numeram: appeal to popu- thority. (“So-and-so [e.g., the Supreme Court] larity when popularity can’t establish the point. says I’m right.”) (“Polls show that most Americans think the 10. Argumentum ab impossibili: argument from coronavirus is/isn’t under control.”) impossibility. (“That’s simply impossible.”) ©2020 Bryan A. Garner 21. Argumentum ad populum: appealing to 36. Illeism: reference to oneself in the third per- crowds. (“I have bigger rallies than you!”) son. (“Let me tell you what [Biden] [Trump] 22. Argumentum ex silentio: argument based thinks”—in reference to the speaker himself.) on lack of solid evidence. (“There’s simply no 37. Ipse dixit: a totally unsupported assertion. evidence that . .”) (“It’s true because I say so.”) 23. Argumentum in terrorem: invocation of 38. Logomachy /luh-GOM-uh-kee/: a dispute over terror. (“If I’m not elected, horrible things will terminology. (An argument about the appro- happen to this country.”) priateness of certain words.) 24. Asteism: politely clever mockery. (“You 39. Metanoia /met-uh-NOY-uh/: correcting should know. You’re the President [or You oneself for rhetorical effect. (“I stand here as a were the Vice President], after all.”) candidate . well, no, as your President Elect 25. Caconym: use of an objectionable or inappro- as of November.”) priate term. (“China virus,” “deplorables,” etc.) 40. Non sequitur /non SEK-wi-tuhr/: a statement 26. Choplogic: an illogical argument based on that doesn’t follow. (“I’m the candidate you can trivial points that are impossible to follow. trust. I’m from New York/Delaware.”) (Find your own.) 41. Nosism /NOH-siz-uhm/: the use of we in ref- 27. Doublespeak: word choice made for the pur- erence to oneself. pose of deception or misrepresentation. (Find 42. Paralipsis /pa-ruh-LYP-sis/: a brief reference your own.) to something to emphasize the suggestiveness 28. Epiplexis: the use of rebuke or reproach. of what is omitted. (“I’ll mention only two (“Shame on you.”) of the hundreds of lies you’ve told in the last 29. Epithet: trying to name one’s opponent in month.”) a disparaging way. (Sleepy Joe/Crummy 43. Porcinocephalic refusal: pigheaded denial of Trump.) a point. (“You say there’s global warming. I just 30. Epitrope /ee-PI-truh-pee/: a declaration that don’t agree. I have nothing more to say. I just objective outside observers would side with don’t accept that.”) you. (“Let’s let the American people decide.”) 44. Psittacism /SIT-uh-siz-uhm/: thoughtless par- 31. Epizeuxis: emphatic repetition. (Look for roting of another’s words or ideas without any instances of saying something three times in personal understanding of what one is saying. quick succession.) 45. Rodomontade /rod-uh-mon-TAHD/: bluster- 32. Erotesis /er-oh-TEE-sis/: an unbroken series ing braggadocio; ranting self-praise. of rhetorical questions. (“Why should we be- 46. Sloganeering: the use of rallying cries or atten- lieve you? Why should anyone would believe tion-getting phrases instead of reasoning. you? How could any sensible person believe 47. Tapinosis /tap-i-NOH-sis/: the debasement of you?”) something by calling it by some undignified 33. Guilt by association: your comrades are bad, name. (“The flunkies that you call/called your and so you must be. (“Your friends and family Kitchen Cabinet.) have been found to be corrupt. We know that 48. Tu quoque /too KWOH-kwee/: a retort in you are, too.”) which the speaker says the opponent is just 34. Hyperbole: exaggeration of facts to distort. as bad or worse. (“You say I’m [X]. You’re the (Find your own.) same, but worse.”) 35. Ignoratio elenchi /ig-nor-AY-shee-oh i-LENG-kee/: trying to establish a point by ar- Bryan A. Garner is president of LawProse Inc. and guing irrelevancies. (“The wall does/does not author of Garner’s Modern English Usage. work. Crime is going down/up in our cities!”) ©2020 Bryan A. Garner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colecția Erorilor De Argumentare
    Colecția erorilor de argumentare 62 dintre cele mai comune erori de argumentare Este extrem de ușor să comiți o eroare atunci când ai sentimente puternice cu privire la subiectul tău - dacă o concluzie ți se pare evidentă, este mai probabil să presupui că este adevărată și să fii neglijent cu dovezile, spre exemplu. Pentru a te ajuta să vezi cum oamenii fac în mod frecvent aceste greșeli, acest document folosește o serie de exemple comune în spațiul public - argumente despre subiecte precum avortul, controlul armelor, pedeapsa cu moartea, căsătoria persoanelor de același sex, vaccinare etc. Scopul acestui document, totuși, nu este să argumenteze pentru o poziție cu privire la oricare dintre aceste probleme; mai degrabă, este pentru a ilustra raționamentul slab din spatele acestora; vei observa, probabil, că unele afirmații din exemplele alese pentru a ilustra aceste erori sunt, în mod evident, false. Dacă știi care sunt erorile, le poți evita în argumentele tale. Acest aspect îți oferă și o bază pentru evaluarea și criticarea argumentelor celorlalți. apelul la probabilitate O AFIRMAȚIE CONSIDERATĂ VALIDĂ DOAR PENTRU CĂ S-AR PUTEA SĂ FIE ADEVĂRATĂ. "CEVA S-AR PUTEA SĂ MEARGĂ PROST. apelul la PRIN URMARE, VA MERGE PROST" probabilitate ARGUMENT DIN EROARE SAU eroare în eroare PRESUPUNEREA CĂ, DACĂ UN ARGUMENT ESTE ERONAT, ATUNCI CONCLUZIA ESTE FALSĂ. "TOM: VORBESC ENGLEZĂ. PRIN URMARE, SUNT ENGLEZ. BEN: AMERICANII ȘI CANADIENII, PRINTRE ALȚII, VORBESC ENGLEZĂ. PRESUPUNÂND eroare în CĂ A VORBI ÎN ENGLEZĂ ȘI A FI ENGLEZ eroare MERG ÎNTOTDEAUNA ÎMPREUNĂ, TOCMAI AI COMIS O EROARE. PRIN URMARE, NU EȘTI ENGLEZ." BEN CONSIDERĂ CĂ BEN NU ESTE ENGLEZ DEOARECE ARGUMENTUL LUI ESTE ERONAT.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf
    10 fallacies and examples pdf Continue A: It is imperative that we promote adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project. Man B: Do you think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up, loser; You don't know what you're talking about. #2: Ad Populum: Ad Populum tries to prove the argument as correct simply because many people believe it is. Example: 80% of people are in favor of the death penalty, so the death penalty is moral. #3. Appeal to the body: In this erroneous argument, the author argues that his argument is correct because someone known or powerful supports it. Example: We need to change the age of drinking because Einstein believed that 18 was the right age of drinking. #4. Begging question: This happens when the author's premise and conclusion say the same thing. Example: Fashion magazines do not harm women's self-esteem because women's trust is not damaged after reading the magazine. #5. False dichotomy: This misconception is based on the assumption that there are only two possible solutions, so refuting one decision means that another solution should be used. It ignores other alternative solutions. Example: If you want better public schools, you should raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have the best schools #6. Hasty Generalization: Hasty Generalization occurs when the initiator uses too small a sample size to support a broad generalization. Example: Sally couldn't find any cute clothes in the boutique and couldn't Maura, so there are no cute clothes in the boutique.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SCRIVENER English Test for Lawyers: Fall Semester 2020 by Scott Moïse
    THE SCRIVENER English Test For Lawyers: Fall Semester 2020 By Scott Moïse Professor Scrivener noticed that methods and substance, not ipse “Deserts” means “the punish- our South Carolina lawyers have dixit). ment that one deserves.” See “Just not had a test for two years. That Deserts” or “Just Desserts?, Mer- will never do. To make sure that EXTRA CREDIT: Translate “De Natu- riam-Webster.com Dictionary, your skills are still sharp, we will ra Deorum.” https://www.merriam-webster. have a Fall Semester COVID-19 re- com/dictionary/just%20deserts. mote edition of the English Test for 2. Who let the dogs out? Not ____! “Desserts” means “a sweet course Lawyers. You may begin. (A) I or dish served at the end of a (B) Me meal.” Id. at https://www.merri- 1. The court ruled that the expert’s am-webster.com/dictionary/des- testimony was based on reliable ANSWER: sert. The two words have the same methodology, not ipse dixit. What (A) I pronunciation, so the confusion is is ipse dixit? The pronoun “I” is in the nomi- understandable. (A) an unproved or dogmatic native case, so “I” is used for sub- Justice Scalia knew the answer statement jects in a sentence. In this situa- to this question. See Brown, 564 U.S. (B) false underlying premises tion, “I” is the subject because I am at 796 (quoting The Complete Broth- (C) junk science doing the acting: “I did not let the ers Grimm Fairy Tales 198 (2006 ed.). dogs out.” In fact, 439 opinions have gotten ANSWER: The pronoun “me” is in the ob- it right.
    [Show full text]
  • The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman
    CO =CD o If) 5 LD i^/x\.;.:.-:..:x-^.-' _.. o- -<gf ,. -CT) o ==0o ^Hl; "'-v>^''f,J>i,J^t''^k';,*--:\: t C^ > :CD ^^ ::'::' '-' ' CO ";';fw;; '>^r,,- :'^r- VI' vr >• ;,v:.-.:;:;:V^v,.-.'/<,,j-V.'; ;;' :<3t'^ TV * Presented to the LIBRARY of the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO hy MOFFATT ST. ANDREW WOODSIDE 1970 ^r I Ube Morl^s Classics XL THE WORKS OF LAURENCE STERNE.—L THE UFE AND OPINIONS OF TRISTRAM SHANDY, Gentleman. ) TTbe MorlD's Classics Pott 8vo, leather, gilt, 2j. net. Buckram, paper label, is. 6d. net. Cloth, IS. net. (All volumes, with the exception of Works of Fiction, can be obtained bound in parchment, gilt back, side, top, and silk marker, in case, 2S. 6d. net each. 1. Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. 21. Poe's Tales of Mystery and Seco'ui Impression. Imagination. 2. Lamb's Essays of Ella. Third 22. White's History of Selbome. Impression. 23. De Qulncey's Opium Eater. Tennyson's 3. Poems. 1830-1858. 24. Bacon's Essays. Third Impression. 25. Hazlitt'a Wlnterslow. 4. Goldsmith's Vicar of Wake- 26. Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter. field. Second Impression. 27. Macaulay's Lays of Ancient 5. Hazlltfs Table Talk. Second Rome. Impression. 23. Thackeray's Henry Esmond. 6. Emerson's Essays. Third Im- 29. Scott's Ivanhoe. pression. 30. Emerson's English Trails. 7. Keats' Poems. Second Impres- 31. George Eliot's Mill on the sion. Floss. 8. Dickens' Oliver Twist. 32. Selected English Essays. 9. The Ingoldsby Legends. Second Chosen and arranged by W. Impression. Peacock. Hume's Essays.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reality Creators
    The Reality Creators An Epic Fairytale About Life On Earth By Christopher Hall The Reality Creators COPYRIGHT © 2021 BY CHRISTOPHER HALL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ISBN: 978-1-7923-3330-9 (e-book) ISBN: 979-8-6183-2728-2 (paperback) Cover Design by Christopher Hall Goat photograph by Smuj Smujington Printed in the USA The characters and events portrayed in this book are fictitious. Any similarity to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental and not intended by the author. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the address below: [email protected] Upon a great scene has descended people who've come running to help from the right and the left, and no matter how they view the event and from what angle, they all care to be of service. This book is for them. We are like water drops that make up a watershed, a connected flow from the first drop wetting the soil to the millions more that make up a puddle and flow down a ditch, into a creek, that flows to the river, and out into the ocean that is all of us. That little drop is spread out everywhere and is one with all the other drops. Together they float up into the sky, rain down upon the earth, support life, water trees, plants, and animals, and fill the seas in a never-ending cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment in Its Third Century: Three Wisconsin Pieces to the Constitutional Puzzle
    Marquette University Law School Marquette Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1998 The irsF t Amendment in Its Third Century: Three Wisconsin Pieces to the Constitutional Puzzle Peter K. Rofes Marquette University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub Part of the Law Commons Publication Information Peter K. Rofes, The irF st Amendment in Its Third Century: Three Wisconsin Pieces to the Constitutional Puzzle, 1998 Wis. L. Rev. 861. Copyright by The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System; Reprinted by permission of the Wisconsin Law Review. Repository Citation Rofes, Peter K., "The irF st Amendment in Its Third Century: Three Wisconsin Pieces to the Constitutional Puzzle" (1998). Faculty Publications. Paper 554. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub/554 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN ITS THIRD CENTURY: THREE WISCONSIN PIECES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PUZZLE PETER K. ROFES° Several months back, my colleague Gordon Hylton-an historian through and through-was explaining to me how the idea for this symposium began as something of an excuse for historians to .gather in celebration of Wisconsin's sesquicentennial. As Professor Hylton recounted the story that day, it was clear that something had gone terribly wrong, as the original idea for the event somehow unraveled into one that encouraged participation from those of us who lack the credentials to call ourselves historians.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative Spaces and Literary Landscapes in William Gilmore Simms’S Antebellum Fiction
    GEOGRAPHIES OF THE MIND: NARRATIVE SPACES AND LITERARY LANDSCAPES IN WILLIAM GILMORE SIMMS’S ANTEBELLUM FICTION Kathleen Crosby A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English and Comparative Literature in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Philip F. Gura William L. Andrews Jennifer Larson Timothy Marr Ruth Salvaggio © 2015 Kathleen Crosby ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Kathleen Crosby: Geographies of the Mind: Narrative Spaces and Literary Landscapes in William Gilmore Simms’s Antebellum Fiction (Under the direction of Philip F. Gura) Genre affords a theoretical and conceptual framework for knowledge production and knowledge distribution. Rhetorically, genre affords a political, artistic, and ideological tool that enables a rhetor to respond to personal and cultural anxieties. Geographies of the Mind: Narrative Spaces and Literary Landscapes in William Gilmore Simms’s Antebellum Fiction examines ten of nineteenth-century American author William Gilmore Simms’s works, including three manuscript-only ones. Drawing upon rhetorical theory and narrative theory, this project uncovers the breadth of Simms’s rhetorical and literary practices within the confession narrative, the ghost story, the pirate romance, and the sentimental novel. I demonstrate that Simms’s texts both adhere to and subvert the boundaries of generic conventions and, in doing so, elucidate legal, psychological, and transnational concerns of the time. By focusing on the narrative spaces of Simms’s texts, I prove that Simms’s geographic spaces reverberate with hauntings that serve to mark moments of intellectual, personal, and historical disconnect, thereby voicing the disjunctive nature of antebellum southern spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Les Sophismes
    Espaces Multimédia de la Copavo Stage « Traitement de texte » - Mars 2015 Les sophismes Oh ! un argument pour autoriser notre conduite ! Un sophisme, une argutie à attraper le diable ! William Shakespeare Définitions On appelle paralogisme et sophisme des raisonnements erronés ayant tous deux l’apparence d'un raisonnement logique. Mais contrairement au paralogisme qui n'est qu'une simple erreur de raisonnement, le sophisme est un raisonnement fallacieux, c'est-à-dire énoncé dans le but de tromper son interlocuteur. Le sophisme est donc en quelque sorte un paralogisme volontaire. Un peu d'histoire Dans la Grèce antique, les sophistes (de sophia, la « sagesse ») enseignaient l'éloquence et l'art de la persuasion. Orateurs prestigieux, leur but était de persuader l'auditoire des assemblées ou des tribunaux, même au mépris de la vérité ce qui leur valurent les critiques de Socrate, de Platon, puis d'Aristote qui fut le premier à établir une classification des raisonnements et, entre autres, à démonter les logiques fallacieuses à l'œuvre dans les sophismes. La Mort de Socrate (David, 1787) John Stuart Mill, dans son ouvrage Système de certains faits) ou de mal observation logique déductive et inductive (1843), a étudié les (dénaturation de certains faits) sophismes et proposé une classification en quatre • Le sophisme de généralisation provenant groupes : d'une fausse conception générale du • Le sophisme de simple inspection, ou procédé inductif, celle qui, selon Mill, sophisme a priori, quand la « solution » embrassant le plus grand nombre et la plus n'est pas démontrée mais présentée grande variété « d'inférences vicieuses ». comme évidente en soi.
    [Show full text]
  • Accent Accent Is a Form of Fallacy Through Shifting Meaning. in This Case, the Meaning Is Changed by Altering Which Parts Of
    FALLACIES Accent Accent is a form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized. For example: "We should not speak ill of our friends" and "We should not speak ill of our friends" Be particularly wary of this fallacy on the net, where it's easy to misread the emphasis of what's written. Ad hoc As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation: "I was healed from cancer." "Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer." "So, will He heal others who have cancer?" "Er... The ways of God are mysterious." Affirmation of the consequent This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true." To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for this implication. Here's an example: "If the universe had been created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organization everywhere.
    [Show full text]
  • So You Say: Demonstrated Facts V. Unsupported Assertions
    So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Prepared by: Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and W. Michael Gillette, Associate Justice (retired) Oregon Supreme Court Shareholder: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Prepared for: 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Copyright © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications Wilsonville, Oregon So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Page 1 So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) W. Michael Gillette, Association Justice, Oregon Supreme Court (retired) I. Burdens of Proof A. “Burden of Proof” Defined: 1. Duty placed upon a party to a civil or criminal action to prove or disprove a disputed fact. 2. “Burden of Proof” is also used as a synonym for “Burden of Persuasion” which is the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed fact. B. Preponderance of the Evidence Defined: 1. Evidence, as a whole, shows fact to be proved is more probable than not. 2. The existence of the fact at issue is more likely than not. 3. The greater weight of the credible evidence. 4. More evidence or more credible evidence than evidence offered in opposition to it. C. Clear and Convincing Evidence Defined: The existence of a particular fact is highly probable or reasonably certain. This standard may be used in some jurisdictions when the issue is whether a person was guilty of deceit or fraud—a matter that had to be proved at common law by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a mere preponderance.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 a Great Big List of Fallacies
    Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense Appendix 1 A Great Big List of Fallacies To avoid falling for the "Intrinsic Value of Senseless Hard Work Fallacy" (see also "Reinventing the Wheel"), I began with Wikipedia's helpful divisions, list, and descriptions as a base (since Wikipedia articles aren't subject to copyright restrictions), but felt free to add new fallacies, and tweak a bit here and there if I felt further explanation was needed. If you don't understand a fallacy from the brief description below, consider Googling the name of the fallacy, or finding an article dedicated to the fallacy in Wikipedia. Consider the list representative rather than exhaustive. Informal fallacies These arguments are fallacious for reasons other than their structure or form (formal = the "form" of the argument). Thus, informal fallacies typically require an examination of the argument's content. • Argument from (personal) incredulity (aka - divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false. • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed so extensively that nobody cares to discuss it anymore. • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. • Argumentum verbosium – See proof by verbosity, below. • (Shifting the) burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with (or assumes) what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • No.$14'826'Cv(L)$ No.$14'832'Cv(CON)$
    No.$14'826'cv(L)$ No.$14'832'cv(CON)$ In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit __________ CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DONZIGER, DONZIGER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, HUGO GERARDO CAMACHO NARANJO, JAVIER PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE, Defendants-Appellants __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan) __________________________________________________________________ Reply in Support of Donziger Appellants’ Motion for Judicial Notice __________________________________________________________________ JUSTIN MARCEAU DEEPAK GUPTA JOHN CAMPBELL JONATHAN E. TAYLOR University of Denver Gupta Beck PLLC Sturm College of Law 1735 20th Street, NW 2255 E. Evans Ave. Washington, DC 20009 Denver, CO 80208 (202) 888-1741 (303) 871-6000 Counsel for Defendants-Appellants Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven Donziger, and Donziger & Associates PLLC April 8, 2015 The intensity of Chevron’s response is wholly out of proportion to our motion, which merely requests judicial notice of recent publicly available filings in the ongoing arbitration between Chevron and Ecuador. There, an international tribunal is considering all of Chevron’s fraud allegations, on the basis of a considerably more developed record. As our motion explains, the filings are appropriately subject to judicial notice—not for the truth of their content but rather to establish “the nature and extent of [the parties’] claims and arguments in that proceeding.” Pennecom v. Merrill Lynch, 2003 WL 21512216, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 1. Because this appeal concerns the legal propriety of Chevron’s preemptive collateral attack on the Ecuadorian judgment in New York, “the nature and extent” of the claims in other proceedings is directly relevant.
    [Show full text]