Comm Arts 262

Front 1

Ad Hominem

Back 1

attack on an opponent rather than their argument

Front 2

Ad Baculum

Back 2

use of force and power to intimidate

Front 3

Ad Ignoratium

Back 3

if you dont have proof that im wrong then im probably right

Front 4

ad vercundium

Back 4

appeals to an expert that isnt qualified

Front 5

complex question

Back 5

question aimed t tricking your opponent into loaded comments

Front 6

begging the question

Back 6

arguing in a circle

Front 7

hasty generalization

Back 7

conclusion from not enough sample sets

Front 8

slippery slope

Back 8

one premise inevitably leads to the next and the next and the next

Front 9

false cause

Back 9

superstitions, believing that one cause results in another

ex: rally caps in baseball

Front 10

straw person

Back 10

misinterpreting the opponents position and proceeding to argue against this

Front 11

argument from consequences

Back 11

arguing that a premise is false/true based on the result of bad/good consequences

Front 12

faulty analogy

Back 12

if two things are alike in one way, then they are alike in another

Front 13

ignorance of refutation

Back 13

red herring, introducing a case that leads to a conclusion irrelevant to the argument

Front 14

criteri for evidence

Back 14

accurate
precise
representative
authoritative

Front 15

internal questions

Back 15

is my evidence..
relevant?
high quality?
clear?

Front 16

external questions

Back 16

have i considered alternatives?
have i overlooked evidence?
different ways to frame my problem?

Front 17

how to anticipate questions?

Back 17

have i considered alternatives?
answer questions with subordinate questions
deciding what to acknowledge

Front 18

linked premise

Back 18

each premise is based upon the previous to arrive at a conclusion

Front 19

convergant premise

Back 19

each premise can stand alone, and is seperate but leads to one conclusion

Front 20

unstated premise

Back 20

an absent premise that leads the audience to fill in the blank

enthymeme

Front 21

claim

Back 21

conclusion we want to arrive at

Front 22

data

Back 22

facts as a foundation to the claim

Front 23

warrant

Back 23

piecing the data to support the claim

Front 24

qualifier

Back 24

indicating strength conferred by the warrant

Front 25

rebuttal

Back 25

alternative arguments to the claim

Front 26

backing

Back 26

clarification of the claim, data, warrant, and rebuttal

Front 27

dialogue

Back 27

conversation of common issues among people to reach a common good

Front 28

PRCT

Back 28

dialogue among differences proves to have more potential than dialogue to find a common ground

Front 29

race

Back 29

identification of an individual with a group who has historically been misrepresented

Front 30

colorblind stance

Back 30

seeing the white way as the norm and thinking that we are all unique individuals and that race doesnt matter

Front 31

racism

Back 31

overt discrimination based on race

Front 32

whiteness

Back 32

people with white or light colored skin have been advantaged in income, living, and social advantages

Front 33

white supremacy

Back 33

by treating whiteness as the norm has made other traditions, languages, and ways of life of other races seem inferior

Front 34

colorblind double blind

Back 34

well intentioned whites generalize their experiences to make other races seem more like them

Front 35

problems with civility

Back 35

people who have already been misrepresented must cater their ways of speaking to those in power

those who have little voice in the public sphere find it hard to be included

Front 36

functions of personal testimony for argumentation and public sphere

Back 36

expands relationship between private and public spheres

implicate a relational standard or morality

contributes the feminist way of knowing

Front 37

personal is political?

Back 37

personal experiences, if experienced by a large group of individuals can make its way into the public sphere

ex: domestic violence

Front 38

traditional argumentation theory

Back 38

only using facts, data, and expert testimonies as evidence

personal testimony only seen as a supplement to the fact

Front 39

subjective experience

Back 39

seeing personal testimony as a legitimate form of evidence

Front 40

pickerings critique of goodnight's argument spheres

Back 40

personal testimony allows evidence of the private sphere to enter the public sphere

Front 41

relational standards or morality

Back 41

Family values: portray women in domestic roles

Motherhood: women value family and the child might have been affected negatively by the circumstances of the pregnancy

quality of life: will life be ok for a deformed fetus?

implications of strict moral policies

Front 42

two levels of argument

Back 42

theory of evaluation: what qualities make a good argument?

theory of criticism: what principles govern good criticism?

Front 43

illiative core

Back 43

Acceptability
Truth
relevance
sufficiency

Front 44

dialectical tier

Back 44

always a standard of objection from other side

anticipate criticisms

dealing with other criticisms

Front 45

why causal arguments are employed

Back 45

permits control over events through understanding them

demands we ask how? and answer it

provides basis to public policy

Front 46

toulmin model of the commission

Back 46

Claim: sexual violence results from aggression towards women in porn

Data: exposure to porn increases aggression to women

Warrant: increased aggression leads to increase in sexual violence

backing: little scientific evidence, personal testimony, experimental evidence

Front 47

fallacy of the comission

Back 47

falso cause: showed only a relationship between sexual violence and porn, didnt prove anything

Front 48

standards of evaluating argument by cause

Back 48

-avoid logical fallacies
-can cause produce effect?
-prove its not a coincidence
-has effect consistently followed the cause
-multiple causality

Front 49

analogy

Back 49

comparing one thing that we are familiar with, with another that we are unfamiliar

Front 50

literal analogy

Back 50

comparing two premises that are similar

Front 51

fortiori

Back 51

what is true of the evidence case is true for the conclusion case

Front 52

judicial analogy

Back 52

insists on similar treatment of people and institutions in similar circumstances

Front 53

testing literal analogies

Back 53

-are the two cases similar?
-is there a better analogy?
-are they portrayed fairly and accurately?

Front 54

figurative analogies

Back 54

comparison of two premises that arent exactly similar

Front 55

testing figurative analogies

Back 55

-used for argument or illustration?
-does it appear with other arguments?
-are the relationships similar?

Front 56

basic aim of deduction

Back 56

start with a premise and extract a conclusion

Front 57

deductive validity

Back 57

if the premise is true, the resulting conclusion is true

Front 58

disjunctive syllogism

Back 58

either/or statement

ex:increase federal revenue or cut spending to boost economy?

Front 59

dilemma

Back 59

a forced decision between two equally unattractive alternatives

Front 60

contrary propositions

Back 60

if and only if both cannot be true, but both can be false

Front 61

contradictory propositions

Back 61

if and only if one is true, then the other is false