Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the 1980s, a new argument called a "kritik" was introduced to intercollegiate debate. [24] Kritiks are a unique type of argument that argue "that there is a harm created by the assumption created or used by the other side"—that is, there is some other issue that must be addressed before the topic can be debated.
In his treatise Topics, Aristotle does not explicitly define topic, though it is "at least primarily a strategy for argument not infrequently justified or explained by a principle". [2] He characterises it in the Rhetoric [3] thus: "I call the same thing element and topic; for an element or a topic is a heading under which many enthymemes fall."
A rich variety of arguments including forms of the contingency argument, ontological argument, and moral argument have been proposed by philosophers like Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Gödel, and Aquinas for the existence of God throughout history. Arguments for God usually refer to some form of metaphysically or logically necessary maximally ...
A favourite line from a movie or catchy lyric, a potent phrase used in argument, juicy facts of interest to fans, a punch-line or zinger; these are all very interesting, but usually all that can be informatively written about topic "X" is: "X is a _____ found in _____." Just about everything listed on Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool.
At the end of April, the Supreme Court heard Trump’s presidential immunity case, with arguments centering on whether a former president can be prosecuted for “official acts taken in office.”
Post-fiat arguments attempt to show that the consequences of passing and enacting the affirmative plan would be in some way worse than the harms described by the affirmative. Such arguments are labelled post-fiat because they require the supposition of a world where the plan is passed and implemented. This sort of argument is no different from ...
To develop his contention, Toulmin introduced the concept of argument fields. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin claims that some aspects of arguments vary from field to field, and are hence called "field-dependent", while other aspects of argument are the same throughout all fields, and are hence called "field-invariant". The flaw of ...
The topic for debate was introduced by a president or moderator, who then moderated the discussion. Speakers were allotted specific time frames to present their arguments, and, following the debate, a vote was conducted to reach a conclusion or to adjourn the topic for further deliberation. [19]