Chapter 11 addresses the issue of various fallacies that are
often seen when doing a rebuttal and how to use fallacy claims in order to call
out this faulty rebuttal. Similar to chapter 10, chapter 11 discusses how to
avoid having a bad refutation by avoiding the use of fallacies in a rebuttal. A fallacy claim which is defined in the text
as “…asserts that an argument must be rejected because it violates a
significant rule of argumentation relevant to the appropriate decision makers.”
(174) is the claim one should make when a fallacy in the rebuttal occurs. There
are various fallacies listed in this chapter that are important in my opinion
and are fallacies that we see in almost every argument. Responding to a
rebuttal with a counter charge, known as tu quoque, is in my opinion the most
common rebuttal we see in everyday argumentation as well as “professional” argumentation,
for example a presidential debate. This fallacy is the most important one in my
opinion because it is the one we all have to look out for. When you are under
attack, the typical response is to want to fire back at that person that is
attacking you, but by responding with a countercharge you are just showing that
you have no other argument but to attack a claim. It is not always a fallacy to
respond to a charge with a countercharge, like everything in argumentation
context is extremely important; things like decision makers, who will oppose,
and the setting, always needs to be taken into consideration because the way we
argue will vary due to those factors.
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
Great job elaborating on this chapter Chloe. Fallacy claims are something common in arguments or debates. When first reading this, it was difficult to understand based off the textbook definition. With your explanation is clearer now. I agree with some of your points as well. For instance, I agree with your statement about the Tu Quoque, or counter charge, that it is the most important fallacy because it is the most common one. Counter charge is important to me because I experience them in my daily arguments on basketball topics. So I relate to your statement totally and back you up on it completely.
ReplyDelete