Skip to main content

Chapter- 11 Blog Post


In this chapter, the author talks about refutation by fallacy claims. He talks about the different types of fallacies and how they are used in argumentation. He defines a fallacy claim as “one that asserts that an argument must be rejected because it violates a significant rule of argumentation relevant to the appropriate decision makers.” In this blog post I will particularly focus on the Ad Hominem Fallacy. It is defined as “when people turn their criticism against a person rather than the person’s ideas.” The author gives the example of how we unconsciously use the ad hominem fallacy when listening to argument by attractive people and tend to believe them more than unattractive people just based on their looks. He also gives an example of how people might blame and start threatening all Muslims in a city upon learning that the shooting in the city mall was done by a Muslim immigrant.

              These examples led me to think of the most common example of Ad Hominem attack in our present world. President Trump seems to often be a victim of the Ad Hominem attack because of his racist comments on immigrants from different countries based on their racial or religious background. As well as his conservative views on abortion rights and his stance on gun rights. His racist and polarizing views often make led to people not believing his policies or doubting his intentions because of his certain actions in the past. His policy and stance on the TPS (Temporary Protected Status) is a great example of an Ad Hominem attack. President Trump wants to get rid of the TPS for people who are safe to go back to their home countries. The TPS is a humanitarian effort to protect people and give them refuge in case of life threatening situations in their home countries. Since, the condition in most of these countries are better and it is safe for the refuges to go back, President Trump wants those refugees to go back. But because of the President’s remarks about immigrants most people believe that the policy to get rid of TPS is racial motivated act making him a victim of the ad hominem attack. where in reality the President is not the only one responsible to draft this policy and their are other legal departments such as the Homeland Security which people are not aware of or in other words ignorant of. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more