🔥🔥🔥 An Argument In Favor Of Same Sex Adoption
Counting ratings 1—3 as 'disapprove', 8—10 An Argument In Favor Of Same Sex Adoption 'approve', and 4—7 as City lights chaplin. Budget Mktg. Senate advances bill to remove 'man and woman' from marriage laws". Again, some of you may be sneering, An Argument In Favor Of Same Sex Adoption I might be lucky if Coursework Writing Service said you were willing to hear me again on this topic some other time. Naturalistic fallacy. Law and truth in relation to the state Next, I would like to turn to a consideration of the proper relationship An Argument In Favor Of Same Sex Adoption law and truth, or, more specifically, An Argument In Favor Of Same Sex Adoption law and the truth about marriage as held on the basis of natural law Acetic Anhydride Reaction Lab Report.
My Two Mums (The Myths of Gay Adoption) - Lynne Elvins - TEDxBristol
This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum , which you should see for more details. Argumentum ad verecundiam argument or appeal to authority. This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics he tended to have fairly left-wing views , as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist.
Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech.
In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when a they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other qualified sources of verification, or b they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. Circulus in demonstrando circular argument. Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples in pared down form : "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law.
Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal! Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true!
But they have yet to tell us why it's true. Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife? Complex questions are a well established and time-honored practice in debate, although they are rarely so bald-faced as the example just given. Complex questions usually appear in cross-examination or points of information when the questioner wants the questionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. For instance, one might say, "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?
This is a sneaky tactic, but debate is sometimes a sneaky business. You wouldn't want to put a question like that in your master's thesis, but it might work in a debate. But be careful -- if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you, you'll look stupid. The majority of blacks do not live in poverty. Get your facts straight before you interrupt me again! Cum hoc ergo propter hoc with this, therefore because of this. This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!
It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist. But a correlation is usually considered acceptable supporting evidence for theories that argue for a causative link between two things. For instance, some economic theories suggest that substantially reducing the federal budget deficit should cause the economy to do better loosely speaking , so the coincidence of deficit reductions under Clinton and the economy's relative health might be taken as evidence in favor of those economic theories. In debate rounds, what this means is that it is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc , below. The two terms can be used almost interchangeably, post hoc as it is affectionately called being the preferred term. Dicto simpliciter spoken simply, i. This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit.
As the example indicates, dicto simpliciter is fairly common in debate rounds. Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point. Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter for example, "All human males have a Y chromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct.
Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" somehow defined is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit. The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down.
It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a possibly unspecifiable benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict.
Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival. For further comment on this subject, see the naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good that is, about values from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions or axioms, or premises a statement of value.
Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions. For example, someone might argue that the premise, "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible. The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem saying something's right because it's always been done that way and the appeal to nature saying something's right because it's natural. In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case.
David Hume called this trying to bridge the "is-ought gap," which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy. One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. Fortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation.
For example, suppose your opponent has stated axiomatically that "whatever is natural is good. But some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: a questioning whether anyone -- you, your judge, or even your opponent himself -- really believes that "whatever is natural is good"; b stating a competing axiomatic value statement, like "whatever enhances human life is good," and forcing the judge to choose between them; and c pointing out logical implications of the statement "whatever is natural is good" that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong. Non Sequitur "It does not follow". This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.
For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action. Not surprisingly, debate rounds are rife with non sequitur. But that is partly just a result of having to work within the time constraints of a debate round, and partly a result of using good strategy. A debate team arguing for affirmative action would be foolish to say in their first speech, "We also believe that affirmative action does not lead to a racist backlash," because doing so might give the other side a hint about a good argument to make.
A better strategy usually is to wait for the other team to bring up an argument, and then refute it; that way, you don't end up wasting your time by refuting arguments that the opposition has never made in the first place. This strategy is not always preferable, though, because some counterarguments are so obvious and important that it makes sense to address them early and nip them in the bud.
For these reasons, it is generally bad form to scream "non sequitur" just because your opposition has failed to anticipate every counterargument you might make. The best time to point out a non sequitur is when your opposition is trying to construct a chain of causation A leads to B leads to C, etc. For each step in the chain they fail to justify, point out the non sequitur , so that it is obvious by the end that the alleged chain of causation is tenuous and implausible.
Petitio principii begging the question. This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation. The main thing to remember about this fallacy is that the term "begging the question" has a very specific meaning. It is common to hear debaters saying things like, "They say pornography should be legal because it is a form of free expression. But this begs the question of what free expression means. Something may inspire or motivate us to ask a particular question without begging the question. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered.
If somebody said, "The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it's free expression, it shouldn't be banned," that would be begging the question. Post hoc ergo propter hoc after this, therefore because of this. This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women.
Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is nearly identical to cum hoc ergo propter hoc , which you should see for further details.
Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help? There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example. It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty.
This argument has been advanced in reference to Georgia, a state where about a third of the vote is classified as White evangelical Protestant. A comparison of to Edison exit polls in Georgia does show a shift. Michael Wear, a faith adviser during the Obama administration, is of the opinion that these Democratic gains in Georgia could have made a difference in the state's outcome. Biden won the state by over 14, votes -- a flip from , although the vote is currently undergoing a full hand recount. To be clear, if Biden would have performed as poorly as Clinton did four years ago among White evangelicals, he would have lost Georgia and this election.
Wear's conclusions may be overstated, given that changes in other groups' votes may also have affected the overall results in Georgia. But it does appear likely that Biden increased his share among White evangelicals, and with the closeness of the race, that change could have made a difference. These estimates thus reflect a three-point downturn for the Trump vote among Catholics and a five-point uptick for the Democratic candidate Biden compared with Clinton.
This would represent a very small gain for Biden when compared with Edison's polling, with no change for Trump. How different are these voting patterns among Catholics compared with previous elections? So, in a broad sense, the Catholic vote was split in each of the last three elections, with minor fluctuations from year to year. So it's certainly safe to conclude that Biden's Catholicism did not result in a startling or substantial uptick in support for the Democratic ticket among Biden's fellow Catholics compared with Democratic performance among Catholics in previous elections.
It is important to keep in mind that the impact of Biden's Catholicism on Catholic voters is complicated and not necessarily positive. Biden has consistently run into Catholic opposition over the years because of his deviation from Catholic doctrine on moral issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. There may have been countervailing forces this year among Catholic voters -- some who liked Biden because he is Catholic and others who were put off by Biden because he is not Catholic enough in terms of his adoption of Church positions. The argument has been advanced that even a small shift in Catholic votes this year could have cost Trump in the Midwestern swing states with significant Catholic populations -- Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, in particular.
These states, won by Trump by very small margins in , flipped to Biden by very small margins this year. Josh Dickson, the Biden campaign's faith engagement director and hardly a neutral observer, said: "In the Midwest, we saw gains that in a number of ways outpaced our margin of victory. The reason we won in these key states is because of the coalition we built. I think the work we did to engage evangelicals and Catholics undoubtedly helped us get there. The aforementioned Michael Wear also has argued that Biden's increased strength among White Catholics in these Midwestern states was instrumental in his victory there. But we don't have reliable data to allow us to estimate the relative change in the Catholic vote in these states from to , given that the Edison exit polls did not include the religion question in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in nor in Wisconsin in As is the case relating to the impact of White evangelicals in Georgia, it is thus difficult to pinpoint the causes for small changes in these states' vote with certitude.
Americans' religious identities were clearly related to their vote in this presidential election, and in that sense, religion did factor into the outcome. About one-fourth of all voters were White evangelical Christians, and they voted overwhelmingly for Trump, providing a core segment of his base vote. Additionally, almost all non-Christian groups those who identify with a religion that is not Christian voted strongly for Biden. And the rough split in the Catholic vote -- over a fifth of all votes cast -- was an instrumental factor in the outcome as well. But the impact of both campaigns' efforts to increase vote share among various religious groups in this year's election is a bit murkier at this point, in part because it is difficult to assess the significance of small changes in the samples used to estimate the vote and also because final data and subsequent analysis are still pending.
This election -- as was the case in -- ended up with very close swing state results. It is thus tempting to say that if this group or that group had voted in marginally different ways, the outcome would have been different. It is certainly possible that Biden's pickup of votes from White evangelicals and Catholics in specific states could have made a difference in his wins in those states, but I think we need to wait a bit longer for more data and more analysis to verify those conclusions. Subscribe to the Gallup News brief and real time alerts. Stay up to date with our latest insights.