FALLACIES:

1. Fallacy: Hasty Generalization

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

2. Fallacy: Gambler's Fallacy

The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term. The form of the fallacy is as follows:

1. X has happened.
2. X departs from what is expected to occur on average or over the long term.
3. Therefore, X will come to an end soon.

3. Fallacy: Biased Sample

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

4. Fallacy: Relativist Fallacy

The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

5. Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).

6. Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2. Therefore P is false

7. Fallacy: Composition

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

8. Fallacy: False Dilemma

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive

9. Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
2. It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.

It should be noted that it can be the case that it is not wrong for A to do X to B if X is done to prevent B from doing X to A or if X is done in justified retribution. For example, if Sally is running in the park and Biff tries to attack her, Sally would eb jsutified in attacking Biff to defend herself. As another example, if country A is planning to invade country B in order to enslave the people, then country B would be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent the invasion.

10. Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice

The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say "the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them." This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:

1. It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.
2. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.
3. Therefore people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.

This argument rests heavily on the principle of relevant difference. On this principle two people, A and B, can only be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. For example, it would be fine for me to give a better grade to A than B if A did better work than B. However, it would be wrong of me to give A a better grade than B simply because A has red hair and B has blonde hair.

There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:

1. Most people do X.
2. Therefore X is morally correct.

Do the 3^rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain meet the academic standards for arguments? Why or why not?

Certainly the 3^rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain meet the academic standards for arguments, since the basic elements of argument were undoubtedly present. Each candidate presented clearly his claims duly supported with grounds in order to give light their respective ideologies or platform. Thus, in reference to the debate, the ideologies were broken into various claims while the grounds were fundamentally based on the recent predicaments that America is encountering, of which each candidate must logically and practically address to.

Unlike with academic debate, the presidential debate was purposely aid the voters in selecting the best and deserving candidate in the election to come. While academic debates, are only aimed on educating the students on the matter being proposed, hence, it requires that the grounds must be supported with concrete evidence such as statutes, statistics, laws, rules and regulations, researches of reputable authority and other relevant sources. Further, this debate follows stricter rules and procedures, inter alia, the time limitation and the manner of interpellation, as compared with the presidential debate.

Are you in favor of charter change?

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its members. The second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through people’s initiative. My first question is does the issue constitute an amendment or revision of the constitution? Likewise, what part of the constitution needs amendment or revision? A shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. My second question is does our constitution need to adjust for change? Does it justifiable by new conditions and circumstances? I believe it is not yet time to change. Our Constitution today is not the impediment spur to progress but the people behind who suit political expediency, personal ambitions or ill-advised agitation for change. If change bound to happen due to capricious or whimsical change dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or infatuations of the people, I have a preference to implement the third mode of changing the constitution, which is through people’s initiative. Our legislature has ample cavalcade record of corrupt practices and no longer candid to his people. If legislatures propose the change, their primary concern is there vested individual interest not the public in general. The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiatives upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. Thus, people author and sign the entire proposal embodied in the petition. The proposed amendment is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such proposal in a petition. The full text of the proposed amendment may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendment before signing. Moreover, an initiatives signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed. The people must be afforded opportunity to mull over the original provision, which is subject for amendment, and compare them with the proposed amendments, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free from possible insidious influence. There must be a fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection. An initiative that gather signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendment is most likely a deception and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. Proposal should be voted upon at a time when the interest in them is still rife and the electorate is still knowledgeable on the pros and cons of the issues submitted to them. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s fundamental law cannot be hidden from the people to those selfish, greedy power individual.

Word count: 529

What is argumentation?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary define

: the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion

Wikipedia:

Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises.

Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing.

Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally