This week, you will practice writing fallacies so that you can better recognize them in your own and in other people's arguments.
Choose a topic of some controversy.
Write a speech and insert AT LEAST 4 fallacies. Properly ORDER the speech. (Exordium, narration, partitio, confirmation, refutation, peroration)
Here is a list from which to choose:
Affirming the consequence
denying the antecedent
Undistributed middle
Fallacy of Relevance
ad baculum
ad misericordium
ad populum
ad hominem
red herring
straw man
Fallacy of Presumption
complex question
either-or
hasty generalization
Fallacy of Clarification
equivocation
accent
When commenting on the blogs of your classmates, you are to identify at least two of the fallacious statements and name them. Be sure to check your blog often so you can confirm or deny the guess made by your classmate. In other words, tell them whether or not they got them right. All fallacies must be identified, so comment a lot and help the class out. If there are 27 bloggers with four fallacies each that gives us 108 fallacious statements that must be identified. Do your part. Guess again if you got them wrong.
Preface: I am pro Second Amendment, I wrote this as if I was opposing the Second Amendment because I find a lot of logical fallacies and use of sophistry in their arguments.
ReplyDeleteSchool shootings are getting out of control in the US. Just alone in Pennsylvania there has been 1,555 firearm deaths out of the 38,658 firearm deaths inside of the US (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). It is about time that we get rid of these killing machines so that our schools can be a safer place! Why are we allowing this to continue? Why are we allowing these evil gun owners to murder people like us every day?
I stand here asking for you to join the 75% of all Americans to reform gun laws and make them more strict (National Public Radio). Students, parents, governors join with me so that the 438 school shooting victims will not be forgotten, join with me so that we won't quiver in fear, stand with me and do what is right! Do what is right for the coming generations and change these laws today!
Gun owners claim that they use their guns to hunt and protect themselves from intruders. Then why are these shootings occuring? Is the building we go to for education their home? Are we their prey? I think not.
We must stand together to change these laws, to change this gun loving society, and to change the world. For we are Americans and this is our civil duty to do so. So stand with me and make a change!
I believe that the sentence you’ve included in your argument, “I stand here asking for you to join the 75% of all Americans to reform gun laws and make them more strict,” is a fallacy of relevance- ad populum.
DeleteYes, that is indeed one of the many Sophie.
DeleteIt is about time that we get rid of these killing machines so that our schools can be a safer place [hasty generalization]! Why are we allowing this to continue? Why are we allowing these evil gun owners to murder people like us every day? This is a complex question.
DeleteThen why are these shootings occuring? Is the building we go to for education their home? Are we their prey? This is a complex question.
Bruce found all of the complex questions and a hasty generalization.
DeleteBefore I begin my speech, I want to explain why I picked my topic. Because we have asked to include fallacies into the argument, I did not want to argue something I was very passionate about and have to argue it poorly. Therefore, I chose something that can be considered controversial from an environmental standpoint, but is not all that serious- real Christmas tree vs. fake Christmas tree.
ReplyDeleteOnly 20% of American households have a real Christmas tree each year (American Christmas Tree Association). The majority of the public seems to favor artificial Christmas trees, however, they can be a pollutant to the atmosphere. The production of fake trees helps increase pollution. Therefore, artificial Christmas trees are the main cause of Christmastime pollution in our environment.
Real Christmas trees are better for the environment because they can be recycled and do not cost resources to produce. The trees are often obtained through Christmas tree farms. Since real trees are not taken directly from the land, they are not one of the causes of deforestation. Real Christmas trees also help to reduce the global carbon footprint and tree farms help preserve land that cannot be used to grow other crops. Real Christmas trees also help support the local economy and encourage the increase of local jobs year round, not just during the holidays.
The production of artificial Christmas trees involves the chemical PVC and in some cases, older artificial trees include lead deposits. These two things can be very harmful to a household, especially one with young children. The PVC chemical also makes the artificial trees non biodegradable. This means that the trees can sit in landfills for centuries after they are discarded, further increasing the pollution problems.
Artificial Christmas trees bring negative consequences and very few positive additions to a household. Either you buy a real tree or face the risks that come with an artificial tree. Through this speech, the final question can be raised. Have you stopped polluting the atmosphere with fake Christmas trees yet?
"Therefore, artificial Christmas trees are the main cause of Christmastime pollution in our environment." Is quite the hasty generalization with no evidence to support your claim. "Real Christmas trees are better for the environment because they can be recycled and do not cost resources to produce." Again a hasty generalization because first of all, contrary to widespread belief they are a finite resource, and second they take in CO2 so by killing them off there's less CO2 being converted to O2. I'm not necessarily sure if you meant that last one but it's invalid to say the least, lucky for us, we have a lot a trees whereas other places do not. "Real Christmas trees also help support the local economy and encourage the increase of local jobs year round, not just during the holidays." I believe this is a red herring tactic to make the use of pine trees look better because it isn't relevant to the topic of pollution "These two things can be very harmful to a household, especially one with young children." I think this one is an example of ad baculum because it makes parents fear for their child's sake." Either you buy a real tree or face the risks that come with an artificial tree." This is an example of an either-or because it doesn't include other options. Concluding it with "Have you stopped polluting the atmosphere with fake Christmas trees yet?" is an example of a loaded question because you're assuming they have an artificial tree.
DeleteAll of the ones you named are right. I second one you named wasn’t intended as a fallacy, but now that I look at it, I think it could be one. Nice job!
Delete“Either you buy a real tree or face the risks that come with an artificial tree,” is an example of an either or fallacy.
DeleteYes, you’re right Emily
Delete“Have you stopped polluting the atmosphere with fake Christmas trees yet?” is a complex question and, “Either you buy a real tree or face the risks that come with an artificial tree.” in an either-or fallacy
DeleteThat’s right!
DeletePreface: This does NOT represent my stance on abortion, incase it was unclear.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is quite the controversial topic as of late. Many right-wingers have been pushing to make it illegal, something that violates a woman’s rights. This will harm millions of women in the near future. Why should a party of old white men get to decide what a woman can do with her body? Abortion is essential to being a proper woman, it allows them to grow fully to their potential. Even the Bible allows for abortion in Numbers 5:11-31,
“If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
It says right here, if a woman and a man don’t want the child, they can go to the priest and get an abortion. If the Bible allows it, and the Republican party is all about faith and religion, why are they arguing against abortion? This must show that they don’t care about women, only money. This can be seen in their trying to take funding from Planned Parenthood, a company who helps women plan their pregnancies or get abortions, and funnel it into their own fascist government agencies.
All the evidence points to the right-wing trying to destroy women’s lives because they want more money. This needs to be stopped by any means necessary.
"If the Bible allows it, and the Republican party is all about faith and religion, why are they arguing against abortion?" is an example of a loaded question.
Delete^Ben Hoffman
Delete"If the Bible allows it, and the Republican party is all about faith and religion, why are they arguing against abortion?" is an example of a complex question.
DeletePreface: It is much easier to wright a fallacy on something you disagree with. I am writing mine in opposition to the arts as a college major or career option. I believe that it is important to have people in the arts as a job.
ReplyDeleteThe arts programs have been increasing through the years. However, I believe it must stay a hobby, not a career. This job only leaves room for failure and death.
Only 60% of people who go to college to major in the arts actually graduate (The College Board). If more people go to college and dropout of the art program, then our country will have many people in debt that they will not be able to pay back. Therefore, going to college for the arts is useless and illogical. People who are interested in the arts should stop working so hard on a dream they will never be able to achieve and go looking for a job that will pay more like architecture. Either people should stop trying to reach for these impossible dreams of becoming an artist, or they will become poor people living on the streets.
If people can not thrive on the salaries that the arts provide, than why are people still entering into this job industry? Why do they not think of entering into more of a practical profession? The arts as a career does not make sense. Many artists like, Van Gogh, are known for their mental illness. Suicide rates are much higher then other career paths. Women artists are 69% more at risk than men (Rudgard 1).
There are many more negatives than positives from going into the arts as a career. I do agree, we can not eliminate the arts program as a whole, but we need to be able to limit it. We need to put an end to this seemingly harmless profession.
I believe “If people cannot thrive...” is a complex question and “there are more negatives than positives from going into the arts as a career.” is a hasty generalization.
DeleteYou are right. Good job!
Delete"This job only leaves room for failure and death." I believe this is a hasty generalization. "Therefore, going to college for the arts is useless and illogical." This is a hasty generalization as well and overall the If-Then statement is false because of you jumping to conclusions.
ReplyDelete"Either people should stop trying to reach for these impossible dreams of becoming an artist, or they will become poor people living on the streets.” is an example of an either or fallacy.
DeleteYes, you are both right.
DeleteIn today's society everyone's a winner. I'm here to tell you everyone is not. Everyone should get everything they want because they deserve it and that is false. Everyone should get everything they want when they work for it. When people grow up getting want they want they expect it when they get older. Society tells the youth that when you get a participation trophy you are a winner. Youth sports are saying all kids are equally good at sports. No, kids are allowed to lose. Kids are allowed to be worse than others. If everyone was equal we would all be NBA players. Losing is the best part of anything in life because it allows you to get up and keep going. Most of all it allows you to learn. The experience makes you stronger if you let it. Parents don't want anything less than the best for their kids but making them think they are always winners is wrong. There are either winners or losers, no participaters. I my first year of basketball my coach never kept the score of our games saying that we are all winner if we have fun. James Harrison on the other hand, is a prime example great parenting. This Patriots linebacker understands the pitfalls of participation trophies. Upon hearing his kids received a participation trophies in 2015, he kindly returned them saying that “he wanted his sons to experience the hard work and effort to attain a trophy”. Being in the NFL he knows the benefits of this mindset and the importance of applying it to his children. The giving of participation awards will make people settle for less than their best now and later in life. When people don't lose they miss out on the best life lesson, something a person can not teach, losing. Without losing LeBron would not be LeBron. Every kid has their own special gifts from God but when they are liked to through participation awards they will miss out on their opportunities. I wish we could live in a world that could embrace our differences in a good way not caring about skin color, sex, and use the gifts God has given us. We need to start young by letting kids see what the real world feels like. Some people are better at certain things and that is why God made us all different but still loves us all equal. Not everyone will be a state champion, not everyone will be the next Beethoven, but everyone will be their unique. Losing builds this diversity.
ReplyDelete“The giving of participation awards will make people settle for less than their best now and later in life.” This could be a generalization.
Delete“There are either winners or losers, no participaters.” I believe this is an either or fallacy.
DeleteYou both are correct. Great job.
DeleteThis is Ben Hoffman's Blog^
ReplyDeleteAccording to the National Conference of State legislators, out of the fifty states eleven ban or restrict hunting on Sundays. Three of these eleven states have complete bans on Sunday hunting. One of these states is Pennsylvania. If almost every state allows Sunday hunting then their can not be that big of an issue with it. So, why dose Pennsylvania not join the rest of America? Ninety-four percent of America allows some kind of hunting on Sunday; if that much of the country does it then there surely would be no issue if one more did.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the week parents work and kids have school and other activities, leaving no time to hunt. Many hunters look forward to spending time with their son or daughter in the woods or kids spending time with their parents hunting, but because Pennsylvania citizens can not hunt on Sunday these opportunities become limited. If family members do not get to spend time with each their is no love between each other, the lack of love turns to hatred, the hatred forces families members to move out, they move out and end up on the streets, when they move to the streets they end up in jail, and when more people go to jail more money is need pet to fund the jails. This will force more local taxes and government money to be spent on the prison system and not other things that need done like fixing pot holes. Every Pennsylvania citizen will say how bad the roads can be. Pot wholes have become a major concern as they have destroyed the Pennsylvania roads.
Pennsylvania should open up Sunday hunting. This would correct many issues within Pennsylvania families. Law makers in Pennsylvania must hate families because they continue to act in ways that are tearing the families apart
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
Delete“If almost every state allows Sunday hunting then there cannot be that big of an issue with it,” is a fallacy of relevance concerning ad populum.
“If family members do not get to spend time with each other, there is no love between each other...Pot wholes have become a major concern as they have destroyed the Pennsylvanian Roads,” is a fallacy of relevance using the red herring tactic.
This is correct.
DeleteIn regards to saying that hunting on Sunday can resolve family issues, that may be considered a hasty generalization.
DeleteIn regards to your use of the question “Why does Pennsylvania not join the rest of America?” , that may be considered a complex question.
“Law makers must hate families etc...” is a hasty generalization.
DeleteI will be writing about the controversial topic of investing in plastic surgery. However, due to the fact that I am writing a fallacy, I do not believe everything I write, I am just writing an example essay with fallacies about plastic surgery.
ReplyDeleteWhen you hear “plastic surgery,” what comes to mind? Possible answers could be dangerous, risky, bloody, etc. However, when I think of plastic surgery what comes to mind is rich celebrities with a couple extra thousands of dollars to waste changing themselves into “perfection.” Although some say that plastic surgery can cure people’s depression and save lives, people should not have to pay money to change themselves and make themselves look “prettier” when there are people, animals, and families that are in need of money and have to worry about food before worrying about their appearance. However, society groups people together based on their appearance. For example, all rich, popular, and nice people are good looking and well put together. Even if someone who is not perfect in looks is nice and kind they sometimes are still not considered to be in that higher up ranked social group. Another example of this is if all the popular and nice people are considered highest up in rank and a pretty girl meets all of these terms, then she is part of that group. Society sets a standard that people are either attractive, or not. However, people never realize how perfect the personality is and do not understand that appearance shouldn’t have to matter. Due to the fact that society sometimes ranks people based on their appearance, some people invest in plastic surgery because they feel they are not pretty enough. No person should ever have to feel that way. Not everyone can afford plastic surgery and overall it ruins everyone’s self esteem. If one person purchases it and looks “perfect,” then many others will feel down about themselves and want to purchase it as well. Today, people often do have plastic surgery, therefore, people feel down about themselves and also fall into it. Either you change yourself by investing in plastic surgery, or you love yourself and shine brighter than those who have to pay for it. Be the bigger person and love yourself for who you are.
“Either you change yourself by investing in plastic surgery, or you love yourself and shine brighter than those who have to pay for it” is an either-or fallacy and “Society sets a standard that people are either attractive, or not” is also an either-or fallacy.
DeleteBoth of these are correct.
DeleteIf one person purchases it and looks “perfect,” then many others will feel down about themselves and want to purchase it as well. Today, people often do have plastic surgery, therefore, people feel down about themselves and also fall into it,” is an affirming the consequent.
Delete“Another example of this is if all the popular and nice people are considered highest up in rank and a pretty girl meets all of these terms, then she is part of that group,” is an undistributed middle fallacy.
“Either you change yourself by investing in plastic surgery, or you love yourself and shine brighter than those who have to pay for it.“ is an either-or fallacy
DeleteOh wait Dom already said that
Delete“For example, all rich, popular, and nice people are good looking and well put together.” I believe it his is an ad populum. “Not everyone can afford plastic surgery and overall it ruins everyone’s self esteem.” I also believe this is a hasty generalization.
DeleteYou are right Grace.
DeleteBasketball is a game that has harvested living legends generation after generation. After listing all of the incredible athletes who have ever played the game, the question of who is the best has arisen. Because of his incredible strength and power around the basket, Shaquille O’Neal should unanimously be considered the greatest to have ever played the game.
ReplyDeleteThe 7’1” tall 325 pound Shaq was a force to reckon with during his nineteen year career between 1992 and 2011. In his first year, Shaq earned the award of Rookie of the Year. He played with a total of six teams and won four championships in the National Basketball Association. The fifteen time all star had an incredible career as a basketball player.
Through his accomplishments, the reasons for why Shaquille should be considered the greatest player over many of the other greats is revealed. Other reasons against his consideration as the greatest player can also be refuted.
Shaquille O’Neal is undoubtedly one of the greatest basketball players to have ever lived. Shaq was a tall player, which was the reason he was great at the game of basketball. There is also no doubt that many great NBA players came from Louisiana State University. Shaq was a good NBA player, which meant he came from LSU. His accomplishments are also something that add to his resume as a player. He won the season MVP once and All-NBA First Team eight times. Mr. Size Twenty-Two did much throughout his career to be considered a great.
Many consider either the spectacular LeBron James or the highflying Micheal Jorden to be the greatest basketball player to have ever lived, but is is Shaquille O’Neal who should take the top spot on the list. Although his shooting percentage from the free throw line was worse than most others, he should still be considered the best because there is no need for shooting guns in basketball. Many people consider Shaquille “one of the greatest.” They say “one” because he is at the top of the list.
Shaquille O’Neal was a great player with many accomplishments and much strength. He should be considered the greatest for these reasons. There can only be one at the top of the list, and many should know the person who governs that coveted spot.
Just to say, I think Shaq was good, but he was not the best.
DeleteYour statements, “Basketball is a game that has harvested living legends generation after generation,” and “Shaquille O’Neal is undoubtedly one of the greatest basketball players to have ever lived,” are both hasty generalizations.
Delete“Shaq was a tall player, which was the reason he was great at the game of basketball.” This can be considered a generalization.
DeleteGood work finding that one, Jake!
DeletePreface: I’m a strong supporter of vaccines, I just believe it’s easier to point out logical fallacies if I’m writing from an unsupportive point of view. My speech does not reflect my view on the topic.
ReplyDeleteVaccines bring unnecessarily dangerous problems and everyone should know it. Why else do you think that there has been such an increase in the occurrence of diseases that have been nearly eradicated? It’s time we get rid of vaccines all together. Not only do they lead to deadly diseases, they are also the reason behind the root of autism. If you haven’t heard, according to a newly published ruling, a young boy was rewarded several thousand dollars after doctors discovered that a combination vaccine led to his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). He was diagnosed with autism, therefore it’s apparent that a vaccine he received was the cause. Doctors have determined the link between vaccines and several conditions, so who are random vaccine supporters to say otherwise? It’s clear that if you have autism, it’s because of a vaccine that you have received. Some people who actually support vaccines say that the link between vaccines and autism and other disease isn’t relevant anymore considering there’s new scientific studies that apparently show that there is no link. If a study was relevant in the early 1990s, it’s still relevant today, despite what vaccine supporters believe. Vaccine supporters need to open up their eyes and realize the damage that vaccines cause innocent infants and children that can grow up with life-altering conditions and life-threatening diseases.
Right from the beginning, I noticed a hasty generalization about vaccines bringing unnecessarily dangerous problems.
DeleteThen, I noticed a fallacy of affirming the consequence when you said that “It’s clear that if you have autism, it’s because of a vaccine you have received.”
Correct, Bailey!
Delete“He was diagnosed with autism, therefore it’s apparent that a vaccine he received was the cause,” is a hasty generalization.
Delete“If a study was relevant in the early 1900s, it’s still relevant today, despite what vaccine supporters believe,” is affirming the consequent.
A mere 22.4% of people claimed to have never believed in Santa Claus. This shocking statistic poses questions about whether or not children should be encouraged to believe in the man from the North Pole. The remaining 78% of people reported to have believed in Santa at one point in their life. In addition, society enforces belief in Santa by making him present in shopping malls, books, movies, and so much more. It is impossible to avoid him, so why should children not believe in him if everyone else encourages it?
ReplyDeleteThe story of Santa Claus is nonfictional and fun, not a brutal lie to children. Besides, it is not made of extreme importance and it results in no harm. As long as parents do not fall into a trail of lies to their children about important things, telling them about Santa is no problem. Similarly, parents should not fight their children when the truth is revealed about Santa to them. They must accept that their kids discovered the truth.
Too many people believe that if you tell your kids the truth about Santa, they will always tell the truth. This theory is not true. As long as the parents promote honesty and show honesty in other situations, the story of Santa is not harmful. Honesty in important matters is the most crucial value.
Enforcing the belief in Santa is not harmful or unjust. Santa stands for Christmas spirit and the goodness of giving. If you do not let your children believe in Santa Claus, they will have no Christmas spirit.
Allowing children to believe in Santa is not a harmful lie. It does not hurt the children when they find out the truth, because it is not a harmful topic. Imagination is a good quality for children to attain, and it does not harm them, it builds their minds.
Psychologically speaking, having an active imagination can build children’s minds. The idea and feeling of Christmas spirit is depicted by Santa and encourages giving and care for others. If Santa is shown as a role model figure, children will imitate his kindness. If you tell your kids the truth about Santa Claus, their childhood will be terrible as they will not have imagination. Society encourages the belief in Santa and it is a fun tradition for all to participate in. Join the 78% of people who have believed in Santa, and encourage his presence in your family.
“It is impossible to avoid him, so why should children not believe in him if everyone else encourages is?” is a fallacy of ad populem. “If you tell your kids the truth about Santa, the. They will always tell the truth,” is affirming the consequent.
DeleteCorrect!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete“It does not hurt the children when they find out the truth because it is not a harmful topic,” is denying the antecedent.
Delete
Delete“If you do not let your children believe in Santa Claus, they will have no Christmas spirit,” is a hasty generalization.
Both are correct Regis!
DeleteA sport by definition is, “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” Many of us agree with this definition and can even begin to think about what we classify as a “sport.”
ReplyDeleteWhen the word “sport” is brought to mind many people think of the basics such as football, baseball, and soccer. However, when asked about cheerleading, everyone is so quick to answer, “Cheerleading is not a sport.” But if cheerleading requires physical exertion, then it is a sport because sports require physical exertion.
Let me introduce you to the Elk County Catholic competition cheerleading team who will most certainly agree that cheerleading is, in fact, a sport due to the strenuous activity and competition involved.
In only two minutes and thirty seconds the ECC squad put just as much energy on the blue mats as Alex Fedus puts on the diamond in 9 full innings. Also, in just one routine they are competing against multiple different teams at once versus the typical 1v1 that every other sport participates in. This competition style creates the image that there is not only one competitor that they need to worry about. In football and basketball one throws and catches a small ball and considers them sports. Likewise, cheerleaders throw and catch people, but the stereotype that “cheerleading isn’t a sport” still remains.
Many often confuse actual cheer-leading and competitive cheerleading which represents the fine line of what is a sport and what is not. For example, Carly said, “Cheerleading practice was very productive today. We focused on memorizing the words to all of our defense cheers and made sure our motions were sharp.” Whereas Rena exclaimed, “Cheerleading practice was extremely tiring. I can’t count the amount of times I got my face stepped on by my flyer.” The practice Carly was at was one where the girls lead cheers and do not do any major physical exertion, and Rena’s practice was focused around stunts and using stamina and strength to lift other girls in the air. Due to this clarity, it is safe to say that actual cheer-leading, or bench cheering, is not a sport, but competition is.
Competition cheerleading should be considered a sport because of the strenuous activity involved and the anxiety produced by running against multiple competitors. Cheerleading has every right be considered a sport just like any other athletic program because of the qualifications it meets. So are you finally ready to consider competition cheerleading a sport?
I believe that your last sentence in the blog is a complex question and your last sentence in the second paragraph is affirming the consequence.
DeleteYes sir!
DeleteOne of your fallacies is : “However, when asked about cheerleading, everyone is so quick to answer ‘cheerleading is not a sport’.” That’s is a fallacy of ad populem.
ReplyDeleteThe next fallacy I picked up was about Carly and Rena talking about practice is a fallacy of equivocation.
You are correct, Bailey!
Delete“But if cheerleading requires physical exertion, then it is a sport because sports require physical exertion,” and “Let me introduce you to the Elk County Catholic competition cheerleading team who will most certainly agree that cheerleading is, in fact, a sport due to the strenuous activity and competition involved,” are hasty generalizations.
ReplyDeletePreface: I will be arguing that attending Mass on Friday in school is good enough and is the same as going to Mass on Sunday. I am arguing this because I don’t genuinely agree with it, which will make it easier to include fallacies.
ReplyDeleteSunday is commonly referred to as the day of rest, or as it states in the Bible, the Sabbath Day. Therefore, as Catholics, we should do just that on Sundays. Especially if such Catholics are attending Mass on Friday. This begs the question, why is it necessary to attend Mass another time, especially on a day of rest, when we have already been to Mass for the week? Also, why does it count as “fulfilling our obligation” when we attend Mass on Saturday but not on Friday? Especially given the fact that there is absolutely no difference between the Masses. It could be understandable if the Mass on Friday did not include the Eucharist or has certain parts missing from it, but that is not the case. This situation is like going to the bank on a different day then planned, you aren’t going on the correct day but the same results occur. Honestly, as Catholics, it’s better to go on Friday and not on Sunday rather than not going to Mass at all.
“Also, why does it count as ‘fulfilling our obligation’ when we attend Mass on Saturday but not Friday,” is an example of a complex question.
DeleteI think you have a complex question fallacy with the string of questions in the 4-5th sentences.
DeleteI also think it is a generalization to say that there is no difference because one is on the Sabbath day.
Yes, you both are correct.
DeleteI agree that it is easier to write an argument about something you disagree with, so I am writing mine against the use of technology in the classroom, although I do agree it should be used more.
ReplyDeleteThe use of technology in classrooms has increased greatly within the past few years. This increase can be seen across the US, and especially in Elk County Catholic as each student has his or her own IPad. But, looking at all people who have become successful before us, computers, iPads, and cell phones were absent in their work. Looking at those people, wouldn’t we want to do the same thing — be as or more successful as they were?
Technology in the classroom also creates a large distraction in students. An essay, study guide, or any work completed by any person should be done with all heart and effort, which is hard when IPads are able to perform the way they do. Even though restrictions are able to be made, many students still find ways to go around them. Is there a way to ban these alternative strategies and uses of apps? Probably not. Either the books, encyclopedias, and conversation were the key to success, or people today are being distracted by technology, and are not as focused on their work.
In looking at successful people without technology, and that we should be like them, is denying that technology can help us and be successful as well.
DeleteAnd it is a generalization that technology is the problem for paying attention because people can procrastinate just as much without an iPad.
“Technology in the classroom also creates a large distraction in students.”
ReplyDeleteThat could be viewed as a generalization.
DeleteCorrect
Delete“Either the books, encyclopedias, and conversation were the key to success, or people today are being distracted by technology, and are not as focused on their work,” is an either or fallacy. “Looking at those people, wouldn’t we want to do the same thing —be as or more successful as they were,” is a complex question.
ReplyDeleteThose are correct
DeletePreface: People have to go to college to be successful and make good money. I am writing on the side you don’t have to go to college, this speech doesnt reflect my views on the speech.
ReplyDeleteMany people share the belief that there is only one path to success, through college. People think that if you don’t go to college and get a degree you will not be able to meet you basic needs. Many of America’s most famous and successful individuals did not obtain a college degrees. For example, Steve Jobs, Kim Kardashian, Racheal Ray, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ted Turner to name a few. If you don’t go college people look down at you and view you as an unproductive member of society. If you don’t go to college you will never amount to anything. The people who don’t go to college will always be dependent on there parents. All it takes in life is a word called grit. Whoever has this will do whatever is takes to succeed in life. Steve Jobs started in his garage, he went to college for a semester and found out that it wasn’t the right career path. So he started his company, one that I am sure we all have heard of. Apple is one of the most successful company’s in the world. All Steve Jobs needed was grit, and he had it. His company is worth around a trillion dollars, who thought that a guy who didn’t go to college could ever amount to anything? People that people who go to college will make 100x more money then those who don’t go to college right? Sometimes all you need is a little determination and hard work to be successful in life.
I believe "if you don't go to college people look down on you and view you as an unproductive member of society" is a hasty generalization and presumptuous.
DeleteAnd it says that one either goes to college or doesn't, A or B, is a fallacy of presumption for either-or.
“The people who don’t go to college will always be dependent on there parents.” I believe that this is an example of a hasty generalization.
DeletePeople who go to college will make 100x more money the those who don’t go to college right? << example of a complex question
DeleteAll of you are correct!
DeleteToday's world has been overrun with genetically modified organisms and it is hurting the world! GMOs are causing all sorts of problems and if they hurt us, we should not be supporting them. GMOs need to be eradicated and all natural foods need to be the only foods.
ReplyDeleteGMOs are an environmental risk because they are taking over the farms. Their seeds spread further and they create super weeds that will become a problem in some years. The changing of the genetic foundation for organisms has many unforseen side effects such as birth defects in some animals. Some say that GMOs are necessary to keep up with food demands for a growing population but that won't matter if GMOs end up killing people instead. Some say that GMOs are harmless, but people also thought that many of the now illegal drugs were harmless, too. If they became harmless, GMOs will as well!
Past the obvious negative effects of GMOs, the business of GMOs are hurting the small, reliable farmers that spend their lives working to provide natural food to people. GMOs can add to the nutritional value of crops but nothing is better than all natural, the way that God created them! We should not be messing with the good foods that we have, turning them into bad foods.
GMOs are not natural, they are not harmless, they are not to be continued. They are a problem that needs to be dealt with. We must stop big business and GMO producers from taking over our safe and healthy environment!
Preface: I am writing this in regards to animal testing. I do NOT agree with animal testing, but rather writing this to include fallacies with the controversial topic.
ReplyDeleteAn estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. If testing on animals has so many benefactors, there is no reason why someone should believe it to be wrong in any way. Many multi-billion dollar cosmetics companies are testing on animals and still have not dealt with any setbacks in profits, so why shouldn’t other companies do it if there seems to be no problems with their products? Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety. Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. Either humans will be tested on or animals will be tested on. The use of humans could start a whole new issue, so animals should be used just as they already are. Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them since they do not share the same cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans have. Most of the animals that are tested on anyways are rodents. With less rodents roaming about there will not be as many cases involving roadkill, without roadkill the streets and highways will be kept clean, the more clean the roads are the less someone has the chance of running over the remnants of whatever was there before. Even religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals.
The Bible states in Genesis 1:26: "And God said... let them [human beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." If there is no unnecessary pain inflicted on the animals, God is all for it. Either humans listen to God or they go against his teachings. With that, people should agree with animal testing. No one wants an allergic reaction to happen or to try a new medication without knowing how safe it is and if it’s been tested beforehand. Animal testing has various benefits for the safety of the human race, there should be no question about whether or not it is ethical.
I think that "either humans will be tested on or animals will" is an either-or fallacy of presumption.
DeleteAnd "animals do not have rights" is wrong and therefore the next argument is based on bad evidence.
The first statement is correct. As for the “animals do not have rights,” was not necessarily a fallacy, but rather just a point I tried to make in supporting animal testing. I guess I just had a hard time making an argument with that because I do not actually agree with it.
Delete“If testing on animals has so many benefactors etc...” is an example of a loaded question.
DeleteI didn’t intend for that one to be a fallacy, but now that I look at it, it could be one!
DeleteEither humans listen to God or they go against his teachings and either humans will be tested on or animals will be tested on, are two of your either or fallacies.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct Emily!
DeletePreface; I will be arguing that the health risks of smoking are exaggerated. Although I do not believe this, I find that it is easier to include fallacies.
ReplyDeleteI believe that stated health risks of smoking are exaggerated by far. People who against smoking tend to make up their own statistics on health risks of tobacco, for the sake of them finding it annoying or unhealthy. Websites and other sources say that “up to 50% of tobacco users die from a smoking related illness.” This leads the human mind to see it from one point of view- negatively. Say you’re writing an argument and you said “Half the people who use tobacco DON’T die from smoking related illness.” Then it leads the reader to see it more positively. Everyone who thinks the health risks of smoking are exaggerated are wrong just because they’re ugly anyways.
Another reason I believe the belief that the chances of health risks are skyrocketed by society is because the internet’s “facts” are mostly guesses anyways. There is no real evidence that half of the worlds tobacco users die from tobacco related incidents, but only computer generated numbers. Let’s say I know about 100 smokers. Only 10 of them have health issues, so therefore, statistically only 10% of smokers are affected, so this leads to the statement that people shouldn’t believe what the internet says. Tobacco Control cannot be thought of as a reliable source of information about the health effects of smoking. They are purposefully inducing fear in an attempt to achieve their “endgame” - which of course is the Smoker-free world.
In my opinion, around 15% or less of tobacco users die from tobacco related illnesses. This tails off of research that I have done over a couple of weeks and those are my results. Either you live your life how you want to while keeping habits that don’t really affect you, or you listen to society and believe in your own mind that you are going to die earlier that the average human. By saying this, I will end my speech saying that tobacco isn’t as unhealthy at people make it seem, and therefore should be looked more carefully by those who wish to impose their opinion on the health risks and factors.
Is “Everyone who thinks the health risks of smoking are exaggerated are wrong just because they’re ugly anyways.“ a hasty generalization
Delete“Either you live your life how you want to while keeping habits that don’t really affect you, or you listen to society and believe in your own mind that you are going to die earlier than the average human.” Either or statement
DeleteYes, both of those are correct.
DeletePreface: I personally believe that teens should be allowed to drive. I dragged my feet getting my permit and my license and not having the ability to drive is no picnic, ask me. I chose this topic so I could easily use fallacies.
ReplyDeleteSometimes when you go on the street, you see a driver swerving and driving like a bat out of hell. This person is likely to cause an accident and harm themselves or others. Who’s behind the wheel? 9 times out of 10, the driver is a teenager. Everyone knows that all teens are terrible drivers. They are simply unable to execute control behind the wheel. They are too easily distracted by their phones, their friends, their music, and themselves. Statistics back that fact. Teens are the mostly likely demographic to get into serious accidents. Teens are simply too young and immature to be given such a huge responsibility. They do not take into account the dangers that driving has. They simply get into the car and leave their heads behind. Some people say that teens need to drive in order to help their families in matters of transportation. Is there not modes of public transportation that they could take? Can’t teenagers ride bikes? Can’t they use their legs and walk? In fact, those modes of transportation are certainly more environmentally friendly than cars are. Either teenagers use public transportation or they risk being in a serious accident. So either they suck it up and ride the bus, or they get themselves killed. Think of all the parents whose children have perished in car accidents. Think of how broken they are, waiting for a child that will never come home, waiting for the day they will meet their child in the Great Beyond. Do you want to become that parent? Do you want your child to never come home? No, you do not. In order to make sure that your child comes home each evening, unscathed, teenagers must not drive. They should not even be allowed to test for their permit until they are 21 years of age. If you can drink, you can drive. Just don't do that at the same time. Teenagers are simply too much of a risk to be put on the roads.
“Everyone knows that all teens are terrible drivers.” Is an example of a hasty generalization
Delete“Either teenagers use public transportation or they risk being in a serious accident.” Is an example of an either or fallicy
Correct
DeletePreface: I will be writing about the controversial topic of the death penalty. Like many, I do not believe everything I write, I’m just writing this for the blog.
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty is also known as the “capital punishment”. As of 2012, forty countries maintain this punishment in both law and practice. Some people believe everyone should be forgiven no matter what the crime, others take the eye for an eye pathway. When I think of the death penalty, I think of any murder. Maybe a school shooter or a serial killer. I personally believe that the death penalty should be used in all countries. If he or she can kill one person, he or she should be killed. Killing innocent people is not just what so ever, yet the killer is not innocent. Either you quit killing people, or you be killed. I feel like if the country put the issue out there like this, no one would murder anyone. Too many people believe that killing anyone is wrong. This can be true but if that person killed your family member, it would be quite difficult to know they are still alive and your relative is not. Catholics do not believe in the death penalty. My family is Catholic so they do not believe in the death penalty, but I do. Is the death penalty going to carry on, or end?
This is Anna. “Either you quit killing people, or you get killed.” Is an either or statement.
DeleteIs "Killing innocent people is not just what so ever, yet the killer is not innocent. Either you quit killing people, or you be killed." a fallacy. They could be contradictory
DeleteJuuling, the new hip trend, is not as bad as it seems. The Juul is a small vape or e-cig that has multiple different flavor cartridges with small amounts of nicotine in each. The Juul may seem a bit intimidating to some, but it has actually helped many adults forgo their bad habit of smoking. The nicotine in each cartridge gives them a nice hit to continue on with their lives but to avoid all of the terrible carcinogens in cigarettes. Cigarettes kill up to 480,000 people each year in the United States alone, so Juuling is obviously the better choice to get nicotine for everyone that is addicted. Also, Juuling has had almost no reports of death or negative effects from being used. Of course putting anything into the body is a risk, but don’t we take other risks everyday by simply eating or drinking? Choking on food is more common than negative side effects from the Juul. Saying the Juul causes more harm then good is actually quite incorrect. As previously stated, there are no reports, studies, or cases on negative effects from the Juul, so it actually is not that bad. So, if someone needs help to quit smoking or if you want to join the new trend, well go on ahead. The Juul is practically harmless and will not do anything bad in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThis is Anna
DeleteIs "Cigarettes kill up to 480,000 people each year in the United States alone, so Juuling is obviously the better choice to get nicotine for everyone that is addicted." A fallacy?
DeleteYes Anthony
Delete“The Juul is practically harmless and will not do anything bad in the long run”
Delete“Juuling, th new hip trend is not as bad as it seems.” — are they fallacies and possibly hasty generalizations?
“Cigarettes killjoy to 480,000 people each year in the U.S. alone, so juuling is obviously the better choice to get nicotine for everyone that is addicted” is a hasty generalization. “So if someone needs help to quit smoking or if you want to join he new trend, well go on ahead?” I think is ad populum.
DeleteNote: this is supposed to sound very crazy and nuts. These aren't my own ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn today's world, there is a lot of talk about guns, and if they should be banned. With terrorist acts and gun violence in schools, it should be something that is talked about. Everyone believes that guns are bad, white and African Americans, men and women. Everybody. But are they actually bad? Even though they are used for bad, they are only bad in the hands of bad people. I mean, anyone that's thinks any different must be a freaking idiot, it's hard to see any difference.
People have used guns for many years to hunt and bring food on the table for their families. Even in today's world, they still use them for that. But this is under attack, as many people want to control guns and even get rid of them all together. Problem with this is that it is protected by an amendment, the second one to be specific. Anyone that doesn't believe in the second amendment should be attacked and hurt, what idiotic people. It's hard to believe that you don't even follow what the founding fathers believed in. That's crazy, it's honestly insane. People in the world today aren't what they used to be. Yes, there are shootings, but guns help take down those shooters. Imgaine if a criminal got their hands on a gun, and go on a rampage with nothing to stop them. That's a scary thought.
Today's world has gone down hill, and fast. We used to believe in the right to bear arms, but now we don't know how long that will last. It's upsetting to see this, and should be argued with. We all need to think about how a gun has helped us, whether saving us from a bad situation, or just putting food on the table. Where have you been effected by guns.
“Everyone believes Huns are bad, white and African Americans,men and women.” Is a hasty generalization I think. (Anna)
Delete“Where have you been affected by guns” is a complex question. “Everyone believes that guns are bad” is a hasty generalization.
Deleteanyone that's thinks any different must be a freaking idiot, it's hard to see any differenice. This would be a generalization
DeleteI do not think the voting age should be lowered but for the purpose of this assignment I am arguing that it should.
ReplyDeleteBy lowering the voting age, we will save the world. One topic that’s been popular lately is whether or not the voting age should be lowered to 16, rather than kept at 18. There would be many benefits to doing so. One factor to take into consideration is that it would give teenagers a greater sense of responsibility. At 16, teens are getting their licenses and are able to work so why should they not be able to vote as well? Teenagers are not as dumb as some older people may think and can certainly make their own decisions. So far, wrong people have been getting elected into office and 16 year olds have not been able to vote, so this could change that. Either we lower the voting age to 16 or we will keep electing the wrong people. Another factor is that the legal age of consent is now 14 so if a teenager of that age can make such a big decision couldn’t someone two years older make a big decision as well? Most juniors in high school are 16 years old are beginning to make some of the biggest decisions of their life such as where to go to college, what to major in, and the basis of the rest of their life. If a 16 year old is able to make the decisions that will affect the rest of their life, surely they can vote as well. After all, who they elect will be leading the world they are growing up in. Have we begun to elect the best people for this nation? Most 16 year olds would think not. By giving them the ability to vote, they will be able to ensure the best people for their future are getting elected.
“Either we lower the voting age to 16 or we will keep electing the wrong people.” I think this is an either, or fallacy. “Another factor is that the legal age of consent is now 14 so if a teenager of that age can make such a big decision couldn’t someone two years older make a big decision as well?” I believe this is a complex question.
DeleteYou’re correct
DeletePreface: I support vaccines but I am arguing against them.
ReplyDeleteVaccines do more more harm than good. Think of a a time when a vaccine actually helped a person. A vaccine might have cured polio, but the children are still disabled. By removing vaccines from the face of the earth, all humans will be free of disabilities.
A recent study showed drastic results dealing with the cause of disabilities. 54% of children are disabled because of vaccines. The remaining 46% of children are clean of disabilities because they did not get vaccines. This study proves that vaccines cause more harm than good, and parent should realize that. The parents who have already stopped vaccinating their children are living a healthy, safe life. Since these parents are not vaccinating their kids, you should also not vaccinate your children. So the final question arises, will you stop disabling your children by injecting diseases into them?
“By removing vaccines from the face of the earth, all humans will be free of disabilities.” I believe this is a hasty generalization. I think “will you stop disabling your children by injecting diseases into them,” is a complex question.
Delete“Since these parents are not vaccinating their kids, you should not vaccinate your kids.” This is a fallacy because it is an assumption based on hardly any logic.
DeleteThe question of “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” has been around for ages. This question has been a philosophical mystery for at least two thousand years or longer. It is quite apparent that the chicken came first in contrast to the egg coming first. This question can be answered quite simply through thinking logically and theologically by comparing both theories.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, just in the use of simple logic of faith, this question of “What came first?” can be easily discovered. The egg comes from the chicken, as well as the chicken comes from the egg. However, when thinking of the situation through God’s eyes during creation, He created the animals, not just eggs. Imagine a bunch of eggs laying around of animals waiting to be hatched. It is unrealistic, as some animals who may not have come from eggs can devour the eggs of animals that have yet to hatch. In terms of the creation story in the Bible, the egg coming first would not be able to happen because of survival of the fittest, when animals who did not come from eggs can then rain supreme. The same argument can be made of if Adam and Eve did or did not have belly buttons, as they did not come from any human parents, but rather, they came only from the Heavenly Father.
Some may still think that eggs came first. However, as previously stated, this type of thinking is simply false. If the egg came before the chicken, then it can be assumed that in all cases of animals that come from eggs, that the egg came first. With this idea in mind, as well as with what has been stated in the previous paragraph, all animals that come from eggs would have been extinct from the beginning of creation, as there was no chance of survival for them. Besides, why would there be any reason for the egg to come first? The chicken coming first is the only logical approach.
The chicken had to have come before the egg. If it were any different, the earth would not be same as it is today. There would be way less animals on the earth if that happened. Due to looking at the situation logically and theologically, it can be easily decided upon that the chicken had to have come first.
When you think of football, what comes to mind? Most people initially think of injury, more specifically head and brain injuries. The intense contact sport, is highly damaging, both physically and mentally. Young football players in high school often damage their internal organs, these injuries greatly impact the rest of their lives. Nearly all football players who have played football and became injured as a result, regret playing the sport at all. Most high schools in the United Staes are rethinking their football programs, many high schools are choosing to eliminate their football program all together. Either we get rid of our football program or our youth continues to damage their minds and body.
ReplyDelete“Nearly all football players who have played football and became injured as a result, regret playing the sport at all.” Is that fallacy of presumption by hasty generalization?
DeleteYour correct.
DeleteWhether or not restaurants or anyone in general should use plastic straws has been a recent, prevalent discrepancy. There has been a recent outbreak movement known as The Last Plastic Straw. The United States as a whole needs to cut back on the use of plastic straws, as it is a main source of plastic pollution. An extreme amount of waste is produced from these utensils. If people stop using plastic straws nearly all pollution could be gone. It is up to everybody to make a difference and decrease pollution.
ReplyDeleteNot only will the reduction of plastic straws cut back on pollution, but harm on marine animals as they are found to be incredibly damaging. Oceans will be eliminated if plastic straws are not cut but greatly from everyday use. By simply refuting plastic straws as they become available, a step in the right direction is being taken towards bettering the environment. Plastic straws are continuously being found in sea turtles noses. Humans are causing this. Society is causing it as a whole. The environment is getting more and more damaged every second of each day.
So many improvements come from this simple reduction of waste. By fixing the horrible habit of using these tools society becomes much better with management of unnecessary waste and pollution. People do not realize the damage they are causing. It is common for individuals to refute the idea, and think it does not matter. People believe their one straw does not matter, but eventually that straw is the second one used, then the one hundredth, soon the thousandth, amp so fourth. By partaking in the moment the lives of marine animals, and reduction of plastic pollution can be solved. Being reasonable about the situation will improve the environment itself astronomically by one simple task
“If people stop using plastic straws nearly all pollution could be gone.” Is this a hasty generalization because there is still a lot of other causes of pollution as well?
DeleteOceans will be eliminated if plastic straws are not cut but greatly from everyday use. Would this be a generalization?
DeleteThese are both correct !
DeleteNote this is not a stance I believe in, nor do I think the side I take should be seriously considered by lawmakers.
ReplyDeleteThe war on drugs is a complete failure. Everyone knows how healthy it is to eat organic foods and how environmentally friendly it is to use renewable resources upon earth. The cannabis plan coca leaves are both natural growing and seem to cause very few health issues. So how can these organic “drugs” be harmful at all?” Despite this millions of people around the globe are prosecuted annually for drug charges, a nonviolent crime in any view. Instead of banning the use of all recreational drugs, countries should begin a new policy. Portugal has begun this plan and is seeing a great drop in crime rate, and much tax dollar money is being saved from keeping an excess of these “crimals” locked up. Portugal has decriminalized the use of all drugs in their country and each and every other nation should follow in their footsteps. In the Unites States specifically, all drugs should be made legal to allow benefits such as those that Portugal enjoys. With all drugs being legal, the exact substance will also never be a mystery to customers looking to just get a little high. Everyone these days partakes in some of drug use, such as a cup of coffee, or drinking alcohol on the weekends to lower inhibitions. The human body should be free to say what they can and can’t put in it, so all drugs should be made legal to eliminate wasted tax dollars, save people’s lives, and let people enjoy their right of free will.