You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Non sequitors and other "debate techniques"... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-04-06 06:12 PM
Original message
Non sequitors and other "debate techniques"...
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Thu May-04-06 06:41 PM by Shipwack
Ray Mcgovern, when he was confronting Rumsfeld today, refuted Rummy's spin by calling it (rightly so), a "non sequitor".

This is one of the techniques the neo-cons use to spin their lies. I'm trying to educate myself in these techniques so I can more easily refute them. I found one excellent reference that lists and explains 42 types of logical fallacies. at Are there any others? So far on my own I have (with help from dictionary.com and the above link):

non sequitor - A conclusion that does not follow from the initial premises or evidence.
Rumsfeld (on what proof he had that Saddam had WMDs)- "It’s easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?"

The assertion is that because the -troops- believed Saddam had WMDs, the Administration was correct in declaring Saddam had WMDs.


ad hominem attack - an attempt to refute an argument by disparaging the person making the point.
LIMBAUGH: Assailing a journalist who had criticized Nixon: "Michael Gartner, portraying himself as a balanced, objective journalist with years and years of experience faking events, and then reporting them as news--and doing so with the express hope of destroying General Motors in one case and destroying businesses that cut down trees, the timber industry, in another." (TV show, 4/27/94)
From the FAIR.org archives


straw-man argument - the attacker restates the others position, twisting it into something that is easily refuted, and acts as if the original position is disproved.
"Senator X says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." example from nizkor.org


Those are 3 of them... anyone else have any favorite examples/techniques? And where can I learn more about these? College philosophy 101?

::edited to correct first link::
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC