1705137295
1705137296
1705137297
1705137298
For instance, someone might oppose the death penalty because of the risk of executing an innocent person, particularly because, once a person’s life is taken, it can never be given back. A critic using a straw-person fallacy might respond: “Your stand not to penalize murderers because an innocent person might be punished is irrational. We might as well open the doors of all prisons and let everyone go to avoid convicting an innocent person.” That response uses a straw-person argument because the argument that the debater is attacking is not the original argument made by the other debater. The original debater did not suggest that the risk of convicting an innocent person means we should never convict anyone, but rather that we should not use a punishment that takes a life because life can never be restored.
1705137299
1705137300
21.2.2.3 A Red Herring Fallacy A red herring fallacy is another argument that shifts the focus away from the current discussion in order to sidestep or even end that discussion. An argument that is similar to but different from the one involved in the current discussion is introduced in the hopes that the topic of the discussion will be changed in ways that are irrelevant to the original.
1705137301
1705137302
1705137303
1705137304
1705137305
The red herring fallacy was originally named for a practice used in English foxhunts. At the end of the hunt, the hunters would place a herring on the path of the fox so that the hounds would lose track of the fox. A red herring argument is similarly designed to cause debaters to lose track of the important issues.
1705137306
1705137307
In the 2004 US presidential election, two of the main issues were the US economy and the war in Iraq. Not wanting to discuss those main issues, one party introduced policies in the US congress to ban gay marriage. In this case, the media and much of the electorate began to focus on gay marriage and discontinued the discussion of the original issues of economy and war.
1705137308
1705137309
The three above issues are examples of arguments that are fallacious because they fail the criterion of relevance. Of course, many other ways to avoid that criterion are possible. A few of them are briefly defined below.
1705137310
1705137311
21.2.2.4 Poisoning the Well Poisoning the well is a fallacious argument that attempts to discredit a person or a source in advance of their argument. “Dr. Summers is a Republican. We can only expect her to be against affirmative action.”
1705137312
1705137313
21.2.2.5 Guilt by Association Guilt by association is a fallacious attempt to attack a person’s argument not on the issues pertinent to the argument, but on the basis of groups and people with whom the person is associated. “How can we possibly support Ms. Cooper’s views on the economy? After all, she married a capitalist.”
1705137314
1705137315
21.2.2.6 An Appeal to Fear It involves an attempt to invoke fear to take the focus off the argument. An appeal to fear is only fallacious when fear is used solely to shift the focus from the issue. For example, “If we elect my opponent, we should all build bomb shelters for our families immediately and prepare to be attacked because my opponent has very little foreign policy experience.”
1705137316
1705137317
21.2.2.7 An Appeal to Popularity It uses the popularity of a person, product, or belief to justify a favorable conclusion about that person, product or belief. For example, “Most Serbs support President Boris Tadic. So should you.”
1705137318
1705137319
21.2.2.8 An Appeal to Tradition It attempts to argue in favor of a particular action on the grounds of tradition rather than on the basis of the merits of that action. For example, “The US Constitution has allowed citizens to possess guns for the past 200 years, so we should continue to do so for the next 200 years.”
1705137320
1705137321
The previous fallacies include arguments that fail to meet the conditions of relevance. The fallacies in the next section include those that fail to meet the conditions of sufficiency.
1705137322
1705137323
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132538]
1705137324
21.2.3 Hasty Conclusions
1705137325
1705137326
The general fallacy category of hasty conclusions is sometimes called “jumping to a conclusion.” This general category of fallacies is one wherein all of the evidence and arguments that the debater offers, taken in combination with one another, do not meet the test of sufficiency.
1705137327
1705137328
1705137329
1705137330
1705137331
Those arguments may not meet the test of sufficiency because the evidence was not systematically gathered, because the sampling of evidence was not systematic, or the debater ignored the presence of contrary evidence (Johnson and Blair, 2006: 70-72). The following examples are ones where an argument is relevant to the claim that the debater is making, but the evidence supporting the claim is relevant, but not sufficient. As a result, they are classified under the general category of hasty conclusion. Two common examples and a few other less common examples will be discussed.
1705137332
1705137333
21.2.3.1 Hasty Generalization The first example, is a fallacy of reasoning by example. Arguments commit that fallacy when the examples selected to support the claim are insufficient either in number or in their representativeness.
1705137334
1705137335
1705137336
1705137337
1705137338
Earlier, a sample argument about genetically engineered foods (GEF) was discussed. In that case, the claim made was that GEF are dangerous to human health. Five examples of GEF were presented as evidence. But, the selection of only five examples from the hundreds of available examples of GEF is not enough to prove the link between the evidence and the general claim of the danger of GEF. Thus, this example is a hasty generalization.
1705137339
1705137340
21.2.3.2 Slippery Slope Arguments Slippery Slope arguments sometimes are fallacious. Using such arguments, debaters try to connect a series of events in a causal chain that ultimately “culminate[s] in calamity” (Govier, 2009: 439).
1705137341
1705137342
1705137343
1705137344