cannot believe what happened in the election - Page 6 - YorkieTalk.com Forums

BabyFidgette · 11-08-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amyd

I am neither Democrat or Republican, I vote for whomever I feel stands for what I believe in. Too bad that either way they both end up letting us down and we bitch about it and want to vote the other party back in. It's a vicious cycle. I want to vote for Oprah. Too bad she is smart enough not to run.

Oprah? You're funny!! Write her a letter!

BabyFidgette · 11-08-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexi Rae

i just love hearing everyones opinion, dont have one myself...

Me neither.

Alliec1 · 11-08-2006, 10:30 AM

In all honesty, both parties are corrupt. Both parties will do whatever they have to to get what they want or need. That is the way it is in this country with so many entrenched bureaucrats and party loyalties. We just have to vote for who we think will let OUR issues be heard.

I have to say that if you guys plan to debate, at least be aware of any logical fallacies that may be in your argument and omit them. They are not truly 'legs to stand on' when debating, and using them will only lead to an uproar. Here is a short list that I got from english class a while back to help:

Guilt by Association: Because two or more things share an attribute, you make them the same thing. Ex: All communists oppose organized reliigion, Bill opposes organized religion, Bill is a communist.

Hasty Generalization: On the basis of experince with 2-3 members of a group, the arguer comes to conclusion on the whole group.

Faulty use of authority: Using experts in a field not to help support an argument but to make an argument. Knowingly only quoting an expert from one side of the issue when you know that there is an expert that contradicts your position. Example: "Abortion is wrong because the Pope says so."

Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause: "After this, therefre because of this." The arguer infers that because one even follows another event, the first event must be the cause of the secnd. But proximity of events oor conditions does not guarantee a casual relation.

False Analogy: comparing apples to oranges.

Ad Hominem: Attacking the person's character rather than the argument or issues.

False Dilemma: The arguer suggests that only two alternatives exist, althoughthere may be other explanations of or solutions to the problem under discusion.

Slippery Slope: If an arguer predicts that taking a first step will lead inevitably to a secon, usually undesirable step, he or she must provide evidence that this will happen or present the prediction as a possibility rather than as inevitable.

Straw Man: Attacking a view similar to bu not the same as the one your opponent holds. Example: I can't blieve my opponent is in favor of quotas. That's all affimative action is.

Red Herring: similar to straw man, but different in that the argument brought up has nothing to do with the issue under debate. Example: Bush is a good Christian, so he therefore is a good president.

Ad Populum: appeal to popularity: arguers assume that their chlaim can be adequately defended without further support if they emphasize a belief or attitude th tthe audience shares with them. However, when a lot of people agree with you on an issue does not automatically make you right.

Appeal to Tradition: The arguer assumes that what has existed for a long time has therefore become a tradition that should continue because it is a tradition.

Faulty Emotional Appleals: Appeals to emotion are fallacies if they 1) are irrelevant to the argument or draw attention away from the issues being argued or 2) they appear to conceal another purpose

I know this is long, but if you guys are gonna debate, I'm sure everyone would like it to be civil, and using these pointers can help keep it that way

RLC12345678 · 11-08-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BabyFidgette

Oprah? You're funny!! Write her a letter!

Someone has made a website encouraging Oprah to run for President, but Oprah kinda got pissed about it! You are right...she is too smart to run for President. And you are right....it is a vicious cycle. But that makes America the great country it is....we CAN have a cycle!

BabyFidgette · 11-08-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLC12345678

Someone has made a website encouraging Oprah to run for President, but Oprah kinda got pissed about it! You are right...she is too smart to run for President. And you are right....it is a vicious cycle. But that makes America the great country it is....we CAN have a cycle!

Really? I didn't know that! Why do you think she got mad? Cuz she doesn't want people to think she's a corrupt person?

11-08-2006, 10:30 AM	#78
Alliec1 Yorkie Yakker Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 64	In all honesty, both parties are corrupt. Both parties will do whatever they have to to get what they want or need. That is the way it is in this country with so many entrenched bureaucrats and party loyalties. We just have to vote for who we think will let OUR issues be heard. I have to say that if you guys plan to debate, at least be aware of any logical fallacies that may be in your argument and omit them. They are not truly 'legs to stand on' when debating, and using them will only lead to an uproar. Here is a short list that I got from english class a while back to help: Guilt by Association: Because two or more things share an attribute, you make them the same thing. Ex: All communists oppose organized reliigion, Bill opposes organized religion, Bill is a communist. Hasty Generalization: On the basis of experince with 2-3 members of a group, the arguer comes to conclusion on the whole group. Faulty use of authority: Using experts in a field not to help support an argument but to make an argument. Knowingly only quoting an expert from one side of the issue when you know that there is an expert that contradicts your position. Example: "Abortion is wrong because the Pope says so." Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause: "After this, therefre because of this." The arguer infers that because one even follows another event, the first event must be the cause of the secnd. But proximity of events oor conditions does not guarantee a casual relation. False Analogy: comparing apples to oranges. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person's character rather than the argument or issues. False Dilemma: The arguer suggests that only two alternatives exist, althoughthere may be other explanations of or solutions to the problem under discusion. Slippery Slope: If an arguer predicts that taking a first step will lead inevitably to a secon, usually undesirable step, he or she must provide evidence that this will happen or present the prediction as a possibility rather than as inevitable. Straw Man: Attacking a view similar to bu not the same as the one your opponent holds. Example: I can't blieve my opponent is in favor of quotas. That's all affimative action is. Red Herring: similar to straw man, but different in that the argument brought up has nothing to do with the issue under debate. Example: Bush is a good Christian, so he therefore is a good president. Ad Populum: appeal to popularity: arguers assume that their chlaim can be adequately defended without further support if they emphasize a belief or attitude th tthe audience shares with them. However, when a lot of people agree with you on an issue does not automatically make you right. Appeal to Tradition: The arguer assumes that what has existed for a long time has therefore become a tradition that should continue because it is a tradition. Faulty Emotional Appleals: Appeals to emotion are fallacies if they 1) are irrelevant to the argument or draw attention away from the issues being argued or 2) they appear to conceal another purpose I know this is long, but if you guys are gonna debate, I'm sure everyone would like it to be civil, and using these pointers can help keep it that way