What Fallacies Are Present in These Arguments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fantasyfreak
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around various controversial topics, including the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the morality of capital punishment, euthanasia, and hate speech on college campuses. Participants express strong opinions on these issues, with some arguing for capital punishment as a justified response to murder, while others oppose euthanasia on the grounds of preserving the natural dying process. The conversation also touches on racial profiling in airport security, the treatment of women in Afghanistan compared to domestic issues, and the ethical implications of actions taken by U.S. soldiers. Additionally, there are debates about the morality of dentists, the environmental impact of deforestation, and the ethical considerations surrounding human cloning and end-of-life decisions. The discussion highlights the complexity of moral reasoning and the use of logical fallacies in arguments, with participants identifying various types of fallacies such as hasty generalization, appeal to authority, and equivocation. Overall, the thread reflects a wide range of opinions on significant ethical dilemmas and societal issues.
fantasyfreak
Having hard time with this assignment, confusing, need help if you guys have time. Thank You.

1. The United Nations inspectors were unable to prove that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Therefore, we can be pretty certain that Iraq does have WMD.

2. Capital punishment is morally acceptable because murderers should be put to death.

3. Euthanasia is wrong because it interferes with the natural dying process. We should wait until it is our time to die.

4. I’m not surprised you’re arguing that hate speech should not be banned on college campuses. After all, you’re one of the most hateful, racist, and insensitive people I’ve ever met. Why, you couldn’t care lessabout the effect of hate speech on its intended victims.

5. I support racial profiling and the questioning of all Arabs by security officials in airports. Remember, it was Arabs who blew up the Twin Trade Towers. They just can’t be trusted
6. Why all this concern about the way women are treated in Afghanistan? After all, women in this country still suffer from discrimination in the workplace.

7. My parents used to get into arguments all the time, and they ended up getting divorced. Logic teaches people how to make arguments. Therefore, if you want a happy marriage, you should stay away from
logic.

8. “The bullying and humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraid is, as George W. Bush said, ‘a strain on our country’s honor and our country’s reputation’ . . . . but let us also recognize what this scandal is not. There is a large difference between forcing prisoners to strip and submit to hazing at Abu Ghraib prison and the sort of things routinely done under Saddam Hussein. This is a country where mass tortures, mass murders and mass graves were, until the arrival of the U.S. Army, a way of life.”

9. It is morally wrong to cause pain to another person. Therefore, dentists are immoral people.

10. My philosophy professor doesn’t think that the loss of animal and plant species due to the destruction of rain forests is going to permanently upset the balance of nature. Therefore, it is morally acceptable to continue clearing rain forests for cattle grazing.

11. “Soldiers at Fort Carson, Colorado, have been told that if they don’t re-up [reenlist] to 2007 they will be shipped pronto for Iraq.”

12. So you’re going to argue in class that alcohol should be banned on campus. Well, this is the last time we’re going to ask you to go out with us on the weekend.

13. How can you be in favor of human cloning? After all, you’re a Catholic and the church supports a ban on all human cloning.

14. Terri Schiavo’s physicians were unable to come up with any evidence that she had any change of recovery from her persistent vegetative state. Therefore, she is clearly brain-dead and, in such cases, it is morally acceptable to detach her feeding tube.1. Equivocation—a key term shifts meaning during the course of an argument.
2. Appeal to Force—Force, threat of force, or intimidation is used to coerce our
opponents into accepting our conclusion.
3. Abusive—We attach our opponent’s character rather than address his or her
conclusion.
4. Circumstantial—We argue that our opponent should accept a particular position
because of his or her lifestyle or membership in a particular group.
5. Appeal to inappropriate authority—The testimony of someone who is an authority in
a different field is used as support for our conclusion.
6. Popular appeal—The opinion of the majority is used as support for our conclusion.
7. Hasty generalization—Our conclusion is based on atypical cases.
8. Accident—We apply a generally accepted rule to an atypical case where the rule is
inappropriate.
9. Ignorance—We argue that a certain position is true because it hasn’t been proven false
or that it is false because it hasn’t been proven true.
10. Begging the Question—The premise and conclusion are different wordings of the
same proposition.
11. Irrelevant conclusion—Our argument is directed at a conclusion different from the one
under discussion.
12. Naturalistic—We argue from what is to what ought to be the case.
13. Appeal to tradition—We argue that something is moral because it is traditional
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you show some work, please? We can't do your homework for you.
 
I know it will not really help him, but I'll do it for fun.

1. Ignorance
2. Begging the Question
3. Naturalistic
4. Circumstantial
5. Hasty generalization
6. Irrelevant conclusion
7. Equivocation
8. Irrelevant conclusion
9. Accident
10. Appeal to inappropriate authority
11. Appeal to Force
12. Irrelevant conclusion
13. Circumstantial
14. Ignorance
 
Demystifier said:
I know it will not really help him, but I'll do it for fun.

1. Ignorance
2. Begging the Question
3. Naturalistic
4. Circumstantial
5. Hasty generalization
6. Irrelevant conclusion
7. Equivocation
8. Irrelevant conclusion
9. Accident
10. Appeal to inappropriate authority
11. Appeal to Force
12. Irrelevant conclusion
13. Circumstantial
14. Ignorance

I came up with the same except for (3) which I said was "Appeal to Tradition."
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...
Back
Top