Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
During a typical Gish gallop, the galloper confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies, making it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of the debate. [2] Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably longer to refute than to assert.
A counterargument can be issued against an argument retroactively from the point of reference of that argument. This form of counterargument — invented by the presocratic philosopher Parmenides – is commonly referred to as a retroactive refutation. [3]
Traditionally, rebuttals were half the length of constructive speeches, 8–4 min in high school and 10–5 min in college. The now-prevailing speech time of 8–5 min in high school and 9-5 in college was introduced in the 1990s. Some states, such as Missouri, Massachusetts and Colorado, still use the 8–4 min format at the high school level.
The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate.
In the first example argument map, the objector can't find anything contentious in the stated premises of the argument, but still disagrees with the conclusion; the objection is therefore placed beside the main premise and, in this case, exactly corresponds to an unstated or 'hidden' co-premise. This is demonstrated by the second example ...
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious.Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.
For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy because the reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal.
At the college level, a number of topics are proposed and interested parties write 'topic papers' discussing the pros and cons of that individual topic. Once a topic is chosen, it is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season. The resolution typically is related to a course of policy pursued by the federal government.