The Issue: The DNR's solution to stopping CWD is the mass killing of deer in the area for testing or "control kill."
My Side: Despite control killing being an effective way of controlling CWD, there are better and more humane ways of quarantining the disease without destroying a large portion of an area's deer population.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Hannity Argument
The primary conflict/issue is students and people affiliated with Boston College protesting against Conda Lisa Rice getting her honorary degree at BC. The disagreed with her Iraq war strategy and believes shes a liar.
The Debate between Hannity and Professor Almond and Colmes.
1.)The issue that they are debating was not about conda lisa rice but about whether Professor Almond is correct in his thinking and whether or not he has the correct sources to back up his opinions that disagree with Rice and why he quit his job.
2.) Hannity repeatedly asked Almond a complex question if he Voted for Kerry in the last presidential election because he was trying to get Almond to admit to voting for Kerry. Kerry stated that there were nuclear weapons and Hannity knew Almond believes there are no weapons so he's attacking him and trying to get Almond to prove himself wrong. Then he could bait Almond and accuse him to be a hipocrit for quitting his job. Hannity kept asking if he was a true democrat and if he agrees with Kerry and rudely interrupts Almond several times. He uses a few fallacies when attacking him like complex question, red herring, and ad hominem.
3.) Colme's Question to Almond was simply why did you quit your job over Rice getting her degree? He wanted to know his reasoning behind him quitting his job. His point was that there had to of been better pays to protest instead of quitting. He uses Ad hominem fallacies.
4.) Almonds response was ignoring the questions and sticks to his story that morality plays a role and politics isn't always the answer. He believes that Rice is a Liar and gives an example of WMDs. He restates the morality part of his answers and sounds jumbled.
The Debate between Hannity and Professor Almond and Colmes.
1.)The issue that they are debating was not about conda lisa rice but about whether Professor Almond is correct in his thinking and whether or not he has the correct sources to back up his opinions that disagree with Rice and why he quit his job.
2.) Hannity repeatedly asked Almond a complex question if he Voted for Kerry in the last presidential election because he was trying to get Almond to admit to voting for Kerry. Kerry stated that there were nuclear weapons and Hannity knew Almond believes there are no weapons so he's attacking him and trying to get Almond to prove himself wrong. Then he could bait Almond and accuse him to be a hipocrit for quitting his job. Hannity kept asking if he was a true democrat and if he agrees with Kerry and rudely interrupts Almond several times. He uses a few fallacies when attacking him like complex question, red herring, and ad hominem.
3.) Colme's Question to Almond was simply why did you quit your job over Rice getting her degree? He wanted to know his reasoning behind him quitting his job. His point was that there had to of been better pays to protest instead of quitting. He uses Ad hominem fallacies.
4.) Almonds response was ignoring the questions and sticks to his story that morality plays a role and politics isn't always the answer. He believes that Rice is a Liar and gives an example of WMDs. He restates the morality part of his answers and sounds jumbled.
Fallacies not to use in my paper
Argument to logic- just because you've pointed out logical fallacies in your opponents argument, it doesnt make you correct.
Appeal to pity- ex: starving children commercial, animal shelter commercial; ignored proposed solutions and straight appeal to emotion.
Argument to the point of disgust- saying something again and again repeating the point without backing up proposed solutions
Appeal to the public-prove something by proving the public agrees with you. ex: strength in numbers
Non sequitur (it doesn't follow)- doesn't have anything to do with whats going on. ex: Family Guy
After this, therefore because of this- assuming that A caused B simply because A happened before B.
Red Herring- Introducing irrelevent facts or arguments to distract from questions at hand.
Appeal to Authority-when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of the proposition by citing someone who agrees even though that person has no expertise in the given area.
Circular Logic-kid logic, when someone uses what theyre trying to prove as part of the proof of that hing.
Complex Question- implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction. ex: have you stopped beating your wife?
Spoke simply, Le., sweeping generalization- stereotyping, ex: all men are pigs, all old people are bad drivers
Appeal to Nature- pot should be legal because it's natural, sugar is natural, natural is good
Argument to antiquity or Tradition- acceptable because its always been done this way. ex: south's argument against slavery, why stop now its always been done this way, green house gases have been fine in the past so are fine now
Ad hominem- attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself, sarcasm
Argument to Ignorance- hasn't been proven false so therefore it's ok
Slippery Slope- Adopting one fallacy or taking one action will lead to to a series of other policies or actions also being taken. ex: pot will lead to crack and LSD
Straw Man- happens with every president in office, opposition put words into his mouth and creates a different meaning of what he said. distorting someones view, putting words into someone elses mouth
Appeal to pity- ex: starving children commercial, animal shelter commercial; ignored proposed solutions and straight appeal to emotion.
Argument to the point of disgust- saying something again and again repeating the point without backing up proposed solutions
Appeal to the public-prove something by proving the public agrees with you. ex: strength in numbers
Non sequitur (it doesn't follow)- doesn't have anything to do with whats going on. ex: Family Guy
After this, therefore because of this- assuming that A caused B simply because A happened before B.
Red Herring- Introducing irrelevent facts or arguments to distract from questions at hand.
Appeal to Authority-when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of the proposition by citing someone who agrees even though that person has no expertise in the given area.
Circular Logic-kid logic, when someone uses what theyre trying to prove as part of the proof of that hing.
Complex Question- implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction. ex: have you stopped beating your wife?
Spoke simply, Le., sweeping generalization- stereotyping, ex: all men are pigs, all old people are bad drivers
Appeal to Nature- pot should be legal because it's natural, sugar is natural, natural is good
Argument to antiquity or Tradition- acceptable because its always been done this way. ex: south's argument against slavery, why stop now its always been done this way, green house gases have been fine in the past so are fine now
Ad hominem- attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself, sarcasm
Argument to Ignorance- hasn't been proven false so therefore it's ok
Slippery Slope- Adopting one fallacy or taking one action will lead to to a series of other policies or actions also being taken. ex: pot will lead to crack and LSD
Straw Man- happens with every president in office, opposition put words into his mouth and creates a different meaning of what he said. distorting someones view, putting words into someone elses mouth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)