THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
CHAPTER I
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE
• ARGUMENTATION is generally defined as the “the
art of influencing others, through the medium of
reasoned discourse, to believe behavior of a hearer or
reader, through spoken or written speech, by supplying
him with reasons and stirring his feelings.
• DEBATE is a formal controversy, not a mere verbal
wrangling. It is a formal direct oral contest in
argumentation between two or more persons on a definite
proposition at a definite time.
• The two methods of approach in the work of
argumentation.
1. CONVICTION
It is a process that creates belief or disbelief through
an appeal to reasons. It makes the truth clear. It drives
one to accept the truth.
Is conviction alone enough in bringing about healthy
and progressive human relationship? In other words, is
mere belief sufficient to promote the growth of society?
Since belief, which is the end of conviction as a
method of approach, is merely a state of mind, it is
very clear that conviction alone is not sufficient to
promote human progress.
By dint of sound reasoning or by a simple logical
inference, the arguer may make his fellowmen see that
his contentions are true; but it does not necessarily follow
that he has made them adopt his ideas or theses as guides
of conduct.
2. PERSUASION
It is a process that creates belief or disbelief through
an appeal to the emotions. It makes the truth
interesting. It leads one to embrace truth.
On the other hand, is persuasion alone enough in
promoting healthy and progressive associations? In other
words, is an emotional behavior, is an impulsive act,
conducive to happy human relationships, which
argumentation seeks to establish?
Words have a great power in affecting both the belief
and the conduct of one’s fellowmen. Sometimes words
are used to point out the truth of an assertion or the
wisdom or expediency of a course of action. At other
times, they are an effective means of arousing love,
hatred, envy, vindictiveness, fear, violence.
• Relation of argumentation to logic.
Argumentation has been defined as an art. As an
art, it teaches us what to do. In other words, it lays down
rules to be followed in presenting evidences and
arguments. Logic, on the other hand, is a science. As a
science, logic investigates the process of thinking, of
inferring. Logic determines the soundness of reasoning
and teaches us what correct thinking consist in. Logic
helps us to understand the laws of thought;
argumentation helps us make other people agree with
what we think.
• Argumentation and Psychology.
Psychology is defined as the science of mental life,
or consciousness, or behavior. It is also defined as the
science of the human mind or soul and its activities and
capacities. It deals with the phenomena of human
consciousness. It deals with the emotions of man and his
reactions to circumstances. It clarifies the laws of human
conduct. In short, it furnishes the arguer with a
knowledge of human nature. A comprehensive of human
likes and dislikes, biases and prejudices, whims and
caprices, predilections and idiosyncrasies, etc. is
indispensable to the arguer. Without a thorough
understanding of one’s fellowmen one cannot suit one’s
words and one’s actions to one’s readers or hearers. In
other words, he lacks the power of adaptation, of tact;
and therefore, he cannot effectively influence his hearer
or readers.
• The process in the work of argumentation. In the
other work of argumentation, four process must be
observed. These processes are:
(a) The determination of those ideas in the truth of
which one would like others to believe, or that
course of action which one would like others to
adopt. This process is chiefly concerned with the
formulation of the proposition to be discussed. It
also covers the consideration of the burden of
proof (Chapter IV) and of the issues (Chapter V).
This process is called INVENTION.
(b) The choosing from all sources of information of
facts, data, statistics, inferences, etc. that will help
the arguer to establish the ideas in the truth of which
he would like others to believe, or that course of
action which he would like others to adopt. This
process involves the study of how to conduct
investigation and research (Chapter VI), the
nature of evidence (Chapter VII), the forms of
arguments (Chapter VIII & IX), and the fallacies
(Chapter X). This process is called SELECTION.
(c) The organization of the materials that have been
selected in such a way as to secure maximum effect
upon the belief and behavior of the reader or hearer.
This process involves the application of the three
great rhetorical principles- unity, coherence, and
emphasis (Chapter XI) and the study of the
mechanism of the brief and the outline (Chapter
XII). This process is called ARGUMENTATION.
(d) The putting of the materials that have been selected and
organized into such effectives language as to convey the
ideas to the reader or hearer with maximum force. This
process involves the study of persuasion as a method
of approach (Chapter XIII) and the technique of the
introduction (Chapter XIV), of the discussion (Chapter
XV), of the conclusion (Chapter XVI), and of delivery
(Chapter XX). This process is called
PRESENTATION.
Chapter II
THE ROLE OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE IN
HUMAN RELATIONS
• General statement.
It is the belief of many students that the study of
argumentation and debate is of use only to those who will
take up the study of law as a profession. The teacher, the
physician, the engineer, the pharmacist, the dentist, and
the businessman, many people believe, do not have any
use for argumentation and debate. Some students have
waste of time and energy to take up the study of
argumentation and debate.
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
This conception is entirely erroneous. The study of
argumentation and debate is, indeed necessary for all
who would communicate their ideas to their
fellowmen with some measures of clearness and
logical cogency. In any society of men, especially in a
democracy, the person who commands the belief and
behavior of the greatest number of his fellowmen is the
most influential, if not the most powerful.
As human culture becomes more universal, the
intercommunication of men becomes more imperative.
Physicians, businessmen, engineers, accountants,
pedagogues, hold conventions to consider common
problems. The man or woman who can succeed in
influencing others to accept his or her point of about the
many problems that confront human living is, in all
likelihood, in the best position to realize his or her
purpose, and thus to contribute the most to collective
welfare.
• Argumentation is fundamental.
Argumentation is of fundamental importance in
human relationships. Argumentation is the art whereby
one creates belief. It is the belief of a person that
determines his attitude towards men, institutions, and
principles. As a matter of fact, it is beliefs that determines
man’s action. And since beliefs is created through
argumentation, the conclusion is inescapable that
argumentation is of fundamental importance in human
relations.
• Argumentation is universal.
Man is by nature gregarious. He lives in the society
of his fellows. God has given him the gift of speech.
Since man lives in society and is endowed with the power
of communicating his thoughts and ideas, the use of
language to influence both belief and the conduct of his
fellowmen is found wherever people congregate. The
salesman uses language to convince the costumers of the
quality of his merchandise and thus induce them to
purchase it. The suitor uses language to win the hand of
his lady-love. The preacher reaches, through language,
both the mind and the heart of his flock in his work of
salvation. In this sense, argumentation is universal.
• Argumentation is indispensable.
Man cannot carry on the affairs of life without
argumentation. As man and his society are now
constituted, life would be meaningless if he does not
communicate with his fellows. Mutual understanding is
the basis of life. One cannot imagine a normal society
composed of men and women who do not communicate
with one another. A world of silent men and women is
beyond the pale of natural law. And the moment a person
communicates with another in words, with which he is
gifted, his intention is to influence both the belief and the
conduct of the other.
Chapter III
THE SUBJECT OF ARGUMENTATIONS
PROPOSITION
• The subject of argumentation.
A WORD is a mere symbol of an idea or a
conception. It denotes some general concept existing in
the mind. A TERM is any word or group of words which
serves to point out any imaginable subject of discourse.
A word or a term does not assert an act of judgment
to be affirmed or to be denied. To illustrate: woman is
a word: Filipino woman is a term. Woman or Filipino
woman does not assert an act of judgment to be affirmed
or to be denied. Therefore, a word or a term may not be
the subject of argumentation.
The subject of argumentation must be a proposition.
A PROPOSITION is defined as “an expression in
words of an act of judgment”. And “an act of
judgment is a mental assertion of something as true
or untrue”.
Illustration:
(1) The Filipino woman of yesterday was better
than the Filipino woman of today.
(2) Capital punishment should be abolished.
(3) City mayors should be elected by popular vote.
• Classes of Propositions
a. PROPOSITION OF FACT is one that is
concerned with the truth or falsity of an act of
judgment. It aims at belief. It settles the question: “is
this assertion true?”
Examples:
(1) Resolved, that elective city mayors are more
efficient than appointive ones.
(2) Resolved, that the Chinese are a menace to our
national security.
b. PROPOSITION OF POLICY is one that is
concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom, the
expediency or inexpediency, of a course of action. It
aims at action. Whoever asserts it has the duty to
establish the workable character of his plan. It
answers the questions: “Should it be done?”
“Should this course of action be followed?”
Examples:
(1) Resolved, that the Filipino women should be
disfranchised.
(2) Resolved, that the term of office of the President
be six years, without reelection.
• Necessity of knowing the proposition.
On the part both of the arguer and of the hearer, a
knowledge of the proposition is essential. A debater that
starts arguing without knowing what it is that he should
establish, is similar to a traveler who starts on his journey
without a fixed destination. He may talk on and on
without arriving at a definite conclusion. He may present
a series of ideas without getting nearer the truth. He thus
wastes his time and effort, and confuses his audience. He
may argue outside the real question. If he cannot
understand his own position, he cannot understand the
position taken by his opponent, and thus he will not be
able to refute him.
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
• The proposition may not be formally expressed.
While in contest debates, debates held to give
students training in the application of the rules of
debating, the proposition must always be expressed in
the introduction, in public discussions, it is not always
advisable to do so. This is especially the case when one
is to address a hostile audience or to present his views on
a specific problem to readers whose prejudices and
beliefs are known to be opposed to one’s stand.
The latter case is true in public discussions on
questions of national importance. Here, it is advisable
that the arguer first present the problem in the form of a
question, as “Is the repeal of the parity amendment to our
Constitution advisable?” He may disclose his stand on
this question after he has carefully prepared the
willingness of his audience to listen to him. But in a
formal contest debate, it is imperative that the
proposition be always expressed in the form of
resolution.
Examples:
Resolved, that a party less democracy be
established in the Philippines.
• The form of the proposition.
The propositions assume various forms.
(a) In a club.
In a club, such as a literary society, a fraternity,
a class organization, the proposition is presented in
the form of a motion from the floor. The presiding
officer sees to it that the proposition is properly
phrased and presented to the body, duly seconded,
before the debate starts. Sometimes, however, the
proposition assumes the form of a resolution.
(b) In a parliamentary body.
In a parliamentary body, such as the House of
Representative, the proposition is presented in any
one of the following forms: a bill, a resolution, or a
motion.
(c) In a municipal council.
In municipal councils, such as the Municipal
Board of the City of Manila, the proposition is
presented in any one of the following forms: an
ordinance, a resolution, or a motion.
(d) In a court law.
Courts of law are established to administer
justice. They demand of every man who would
argue before them that he must make clear and
unmistakable allegations of what he intends to prove
true or false. Waste of time and energy is avoided;
and delay is condemned. It is because “justice
delayed is justice denied”. In courts of law,
therefore, the proposition is presented in the form of
pleading. The pleading shell set forth with certainty
and with truth the matters of fact or of law, the truth
of which must be decided to decide the controversy.
Pleadings are found in the following forms: (a)
complaint, (2) information, (3) petition, (4)
motion.
• Characteristics of propositions good for debate.
Not all propositions are good for debates. Care
should be taken that the propositions fit the speakers, the
audience, and the occasions. Not because a proposition
is interesting to the debaters themselves must it be taken
up in a contest debate. The nature of the audience should
be taken into account- their education, their training and
experience, their likes and dislikes, their interest and
their idiosyncrasies.
In formal debates, it is necessary that the proposition
should satisfy the following requirement:
(a) The proposition must be in the form of an
assertion. The proposition should be stated in a
categorical, declarative, positive statement, not a
question. Negative statement should be avoided; for
if the affirmative is in effect a negative and the
negative is in effect an affirmative, confusion is
likely to arise.
Example;
“Resolved, that capital punishment should
not be abolished.
(b) The proposition must express only one act of
judgment.
If there are two assertions or two courses of
action or problems expressed in one proposition,
confusion will arise. The proposition, “Resolved,
that the Philippines establish a unicameral
legislature and that the Speaker of the House of
Representatives be elected by direct popular vote.”
Express two acts of judgment. The proofs necessary
to establish the fact that a unicameral legislature will
be more efficient and will be more economical are
not proofs necessary to show that the speaker should
be elected by direct popular vote.
Students of political science are familiar with
this provision of the Constitution of the subject
matter which shall be expressed in the title of the
bill.” The purpose of this and rolling legislation, (2)
to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature, and
(3) to apprise the people of the subject of legislation.
In both cases, the purpose is to prevent
confusion.
(c) The proposition must be susceptible of only one
interpretation.
This requirement simply means that the words
used should be clear. General terms susceptible of
more than one interpretation should be avoided.
If a word used in the proposition may be interpreted
to mean one thing by one party and another thing by
the opposing party, there cannot be any debate.
Confusion will arise.
(d) The proposition must be unprejudiced.
In a proposition, there should be no
phraseology that assumes the truth of the point to
be proved. There should not be used words of
service, “the term dishonest is an epithet which
practically covers the point at issue.
(e) The proposition should avoid abstractions and
generalization.
Care should be taken that propositions should
be as concrete and as specific as possible. The
proposition should be as free as possible from vague
and sweeping generalizations. The propositions,
“Resolved, that women should organize a civic
club,” is so broad in meaning, so wide in
connotation, that it is unfit for a debate. The term
“women” is not specific enough to warrant
intelligent discussion.
(f) The proposition must be concise and simple.
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
All unnecessary words should be omitted and
the words used should be easy to comprehend.
The proposition, “Resolved, That, in order to serve
the end of justice and meet public demand, retail
trade be nationalized,” is not concise. The phrase in
order to serve the end of justice and meet public
demand should be omitted.
(g) The proposition must be debatable.
This requirement means that the act of
judgment expressed in the proposition should
allow sufficient room for an intelligent difference
of opinion. The assertion expressed in a proposition
of policy should not be so obviously true or wise and
expedient as to make it useless for any person to take
the opposite stand. In other words, the act of
judgment expressed should not be obviously true or
false.
The following proposition are not debatable:
(1) Resolved, that to be honest is to be
honorable.
(2) Resolved, that China is bigger than Japan.
(h) The proposition must be so worded that the
burden of proof shall fall on the affirmative side,
The term burden of proof, it will be seen in the
following chapter, is the duty of a party to the
controversy to establish what he alleges,
otherwise he loses his case. This requirement
simply means that whoever will take up the
affirmative side of the question must be the party
who is dissatisfied with the present order of the
things and therefore, demands a change in the
existing situation.
Burden of proof does not fall on the
affirmative side; because the Filipino woman now
enjoys the right of suffrage.
(i) The proposition must be interesting.
Whether a proposition is interesting or not
depends upon the education, the aptitude, the
experience, the likes and dislikes of both the speaker
and the audience, and the peculiar conditions of the
time. The word interesting, as it used here, is a
relative term. A certain proposition may be most
interesting to one audience but most
uninteresting to another audience. And too, the
proposition, to be interesting, must be within the
comprehension of both the audience and the speaker.
The proposition, “Resolved, that coronary
thrombosis is curable,” is certainly interesting to
medical men; but it is certainly not interesting to
students of a liberal college. The reason is this: the
question is so technical and so far, removed from
their knowledge and experience that it does not
touch their likes and dislikes.
Chapter IV
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE
PRESUMPTIONS
BURDEN OF PROOF
• The nature of the burden of proof.
Justice and commonsense demand that one who
asserts something must prove his assertion. In other
words, he should present arguments and evidences to
establish what he alleges, otherwise he loses his case.
The theory of the burden of proof is an application of the
Latin maxim: Ei incumbit probation, qui dicit, non qui
negat. (It is duty of the one who alleges to prove what
he says, not of the one who denies it).
If Pedro alleges that Juan owes him one hundred
pesos (100.00), it is his duty to present all the evidences
he has at hand, testimonial or documentary, to establish
his claim. If Pedro fails to do so, Juan, the negative, does
not have the duty to prove that he does not owe Pedro.
This duty of Pedro, the affirmative, to present evidences
and arguments to establish his claim is called burden of
proof. If Pedro satisfies the requirements of the burden
of proof, he makes out what is generally called a prima
facie case. A prima facie case, therefore, is one of
sufficient strength to win if it is not refuted.
Once Pedro has made out a prima facie case, it is the
duty of Juan to bestir himself; i.e, to present evidences
and arguments to overthrow those adduced by Pedro.
This duty on the part of Juan is called burden of rebuttal.
If Juan fails to overthrow the prima facie case, he loses.
If he succeeds, however, it becomes the duty of Pedro to
present evidences and arguments to refute the evidences
and arguments adduced by Juan. This duty of Pedro, the
affirmative, is also called burden of rebuttal.
BURDEN OF REBUTTAL, therefore, is the duty
of either party to the controversy to present evidences
and arguments at any stage of the case to overthrow the
contention of the opposing side.
While the burden of proof always remains on the
affirmative side on the main proposition, the burden
of rebuttal shifts from side to side in the course of the
debate.
• The burden of proof and the counterproposition.
Sometimes, however, the negative presents a
counterproposition. A COUNTERPROPOSITION is
one that is presented by the negative, adverse to the main
proposition. Upon the counterproposition the negative
assumes the burden of proof. Suppose in our illustrations
supra-Juan admits that he owes Pedro one hundred pesos
(100.00), as alleged, but contends that Pedro owes him in
turn the same amount for services rendered. Upon
counterproposition that Pedro owes Juan, Pedro becomes
the negative and Juan becomes the affirmative. And it
becomes the duty of Juan to assume the burden of proof.
If Juan succeeds in proving that Pedro owes him, Juan
makes out a prima facie case on the counterproposition.
And Pedro would then assume the burden of rebuttal.
In general argumentation, therefore, burden of proof
is the risk of the proposition, the duty of the affirmative
proved what he alleges, otherwise he loses his case.
Burden of rebuttal, on the other hand, is the duty of
presenting arguments and evidences at any given stage
of the case to counteract the influence of the opposing
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
case. Burden of proof never shifts: it always lies on the
affirmative side; while burden of rebuttal shifts from side
to side as the debate progresses.
• Burden of proof in legal procedure.
In law, the term burden of rebuttal is not used. The
term burden of proofs covers the meaning of both burden
of proof and burden of rebuttal as they used in general
argumentation.
“BURDEN OF PROOF has two distinct
meanings: one, referring to the duty of establishing
the issue by such a quantum of evidence as the law
demands in the case, whether civil or criminal, in
which the issue arises; and, second, to the duty of
producing evidence at the outset or at any subsequent
stage of the trial, in order to meet the prima facie
case”.
PRESUMPTIONS
• The theory of the presumption.
PRESUMPTIONS, in general, are logical
inferences of the truth or falsity of a point in dispute.
Man is surrounded by the inexorable operation of the
laws of nature, physical and human. From his
observation of the operation of the natural laws, he
necessarily makes inferences. He presumes, for example,
that an object that is heavier than air will fall to the
ground in obedience to the law of gravitation. He
observes the law of growth and of decay.
• Classes of presumption.
“Some courts assert that in its origin, every
presumption is one of fact and not of law, but that it may,
in the course of time, become a presumption of law, and
even an indisputable one; that its truth may be so
universally accepted as to elevate it to the position of a
maxim of jurisprudence. . . but so long as it retains its
original character as a presumption of fact, it has simply
the force of an argument”
(a) PRESUMPTIONS OF FACT.
All the presumptions mentioned in paragraphs 1
are presumptions of fact. They are simple logical
inferences. Being simple inferences, they have the
force of arguments and, therefore, may be regarded
by the judge. They do not have the force of legal
rules.
“They (presumption of fact) differ from
presumptions of law in this essential respect: that
while those (presumption of law) are reduced to
fixed rules of jurisprudence to which they belong,
these merely natural presumptions (presumptions of
fact) are derived wholly and directly from the
circumstances of the particular case, by means of the
common experience of mankind, without the aid or
control of any rules of law whatever.”
(b) PRESUMPTION OF LAW.
From the municipality of natural presumption,
or presumption of fact there are those which
legislators have incorporated in statutory laws as
binding rules of human conduct, to help in deciding
controversies. When presumptions thus become
binding rules of conduct, they are called
presumption of law. Presumptions of law, therefore,
are legal assumptions of the truth or falsity of a
point in dispute.
Legal presumptions have the force of law. They
must be regarded by the judge. They derive their
force from the law, not merely from logic or
probability.
• EXAMPLES OF PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTIONS
The following presumption are satisfactory if
uncontradicted and not overcome by other evidence:
1. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
2. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful
intent;
3. That a person intends the ordinary consequence of
his voluntary act;
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
6. That money paid by one to another was due to the
latter;
7. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to
the latter;
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has
been paid;
9. That former rent or installments had been paid when
a receipt for the latter ones is produced;
10. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possesses, or exercise acts of
ownership over, are owned by him;
11. That a person in possession of an order on himself
for the payment of money , or the delivery of
anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
12. That a person acting in a public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
13. That official duty has been regularly performed;
14. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
exercise of his jurisdiction;
15. That all the matters within an issue in a case were
laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in
like manner that all matters within a submission to
arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and
passed upon by them;
16. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
17. That the ordinary course of business has been
followed;
18. That there was a sufficient consideration for a
written contract;
19. That a negotiable instrument was given or in domed
for a sufficient consideration;
20. That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and at the
place where the instrument is dated;
21. That a writing is truly dated;
22. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received
in the regular course of the mail;
23. Identify of person from identity of name;
24. That a person not heard from in seven years is dead;
25. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or
fact;
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
26. That things have happened according to the ordinary
course of nature and the ordinary habits of life;
27. That a person’s acting as co-partners have entered
into a contract of co-partnership;
28. That a man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract
of marriage;
29. That a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no
divorce, absolute or from bed and board, is
legitimate;
30. That a thing once proved to exist continues as long
as is usual with things of that nature;
31. That the law has been obeyed;
32. That a printed or published book, purporting to
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
country where the book is published, contains
correct reports of such cases;
33. That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
convey real property to a particular person has
actually conveyed it to him when such presumption
is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his
successor in interest;
34. When two persons perish in the same calamity, such
as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown
who died first, and there are no particular
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
survivorship is presumed from the probabilities
resulting from the strength and age of the sexes,
according to the following rule.
(a) If both were under the age of fifteen years, the
older is presumed to have sure;
(b) If both were above the age of sixty, the younger
is presumed to have survived;
(c) If one be under fifteen and the other above sixty,
the former is presumed to have survived;
(d) If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the
sexes be different, the male is presumed to have
survived; if the sexes be the same, then the
older;
(e) If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the
other between those ages, the latter is presumed
to have survived.
• EXAMPLES OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIOS
The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
1. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or
omission, intentionally and deliberated led another to
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsity it;
2. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation
of landlord and tenant between them;
3. The issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is
not impotent, is indisputably presumed to be legitimate,
if not born within the one hundred and eighty days
immediately succeeding the marriage, or after the
expiration of three hundred days following its
dissolution;
4. The judgment or order of a court, when declared by these
rules to be conclusive;
5. Everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law.
Chapter V
THE THEORY OF THE ISSUES
• General statement.
In our daily conversation, we often hear the words
issue and issues. Where there is freedom of thought and
expression, there necessarily follow differences of
opinions. One person may assert a certain fact; another
may deny such assertion. One person may contend that a
certain course of action is wise and expedient; another
may contend that it is unwise and inexpedient. One
political party may adopt a certain platform outlining the
courses of action to be adopted and expressing principles
to be followed for the benefit of the body politic. The
opposing political party may assert that these courses of
action and these principles are unwise and inexpedient.
these differences of opinion- assertions affirmed by
the affirmative and denied by the negative- are generally
called issues. In our daily conversation, the word
ISSUES refer to the clashes of opinions and beliefs.
• Definitions of issues.
In general argumentation, ISSUES are defined as
“the inherently vitals points, elements, or sub
propositions, affirmed by the affirmative and denied
by the negative, upon the establishment of which
depends the establishment of the main proposition.”
Issues are, therefore, inherent in the proposition.
They are also vital in the sense that, unless they are
established, the main proposition cannot be established.
To make out a prima facie case, the issues must first be
established by competent evidences, proof, or argument.
• The issues in law.
In law courts, the issues are the starting point of
the debate. They must first be set forth in the pleadings
before any debate can start. In criminal cases the penal
code defines the elements of the crime. The prosecution
sets forth these elements in the information; in civil
cases, the plaintiff alleges his causes of action in his
complaint or in his petition. To make out a prima facie
case, i.e., to establish the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution must establish with competent evidence and
beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime with
which the accused is charged. In civil cases, the plaintiff
must prove or establish with a preponderance of
evidences all his allegations in his complaint to make out
a prima facie case, unless some of such allegations are
admitted by the defendant.
In law, the following term are used: ISSUE OF
FACT, a point raised by a party who denies something
alleged in his opponent’s pleading; and an ISSUE OF
LAW, a point of law upon which the two parties differ.
The terms general issue and special issue are also often
used in legal procedure. A GENERAL ISSUE refers to
a defense which denies simpliciter the whole declaration
of the affirmative. The SPECIAL ISSUE does not deny
the whole declaration, but one or more of the allegations
of law or fact.
To illustrate the treatment of issues in legal
procedure: In Art. 308, Act No. 3815, otherwise known
as the Revised Penal Code, the crime of theft is defined
as follows: “Theft is committed by any person who, with
intent of gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
personal property of another without the latter’s
consent.” In the light of this definition, the elements of
the crime of theft are: (1) intent of gain, (2) unlawful
taking (i.e., without the consent of the owner), (3)
personal property, (4) absence of violence or
intimidation against persons or force upon things.
The PROSECUTION (AFFIRMATIVE) must
establish all these four elements to make out a prima facie
case. Failure on the part of the prosecution to do so will
mean the acquittal of the accused, without the necessity
of the latter’s presenting any evidence in his defense.
In civil cases, the PLAINTIFF (AFFIRMATIVE)
enumerates in his complaint his causes of action. The
defendant (negative) may deny all the allegations in the
plaintiff’s complaint. This denial is called general issue.
He may, however, admit some of the plaintiff’s
allegations and deny the rest. This specific denial is
called special issue. The presentation of the points,
through the complaint and the answer, on which the
opposing parties clash is called joining the issue.
• The issues in general argumentations.
While in law courts issues are the starting point of
the debate or argumentation, in general argumentation,
the work of explaining and defining the issues is already
a part of the debate. Issues are inherent in the proposition,
and it is the task of the debaters to discover, explain, and
define the issues through logical and careful analysis. In
this way, the audience as well as the debaters themselves
will understand the points on which opinions clash.
• Other term used.
Sometimes, we hear the terms potential issues,
admitted issues, and stock issues. POTENTIAL
ISSUES are simply the inherently vital points involved
in the proposition that the affirmative should establish to
make out a prima facie case. ADMITTED ISSUES are
those potential issues on which there is no clash of
opinion because they are not controverted by the
negative. STOCK ISSUES refer to the formulas of
issues: issues that are considered always involved in a
proposition of policy.
For example: in a proposition of policy, the debater
will usually consider the following question: (1) Is the
measure necessary? (2) Will the measure be beneficial?
And (3) Is the measure practicable?
• The necessity of knowing the issues.
It is necessary for the arguer or debater to know
clearly and precisely the points of conflict. If he fails to
grasp the critical points on which the discussion must be
predicated, he may waste his time and energy in
endeavoring to prove some fact that will not help in
establishing his case. Or he may be surprised by an attack
on some vital point for which he may be entirely
unprepared. He may fail to appreciate the relevancy of
the evidence and arguments that he may adduce. By
giving his readers or hearers a false, distorted view of his
case, he will likely confuse them.
A knowledge of the issues involved in the question
under discussion is as important to the arguer or debater
as it is to the reader or hearer. The reader or hearer who
does not comprehend precisely the point in dispute
cannot determine the relevancy or the irrelevancy or the
logical sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidences and
arguments that are presented. He is likely to get confused
and, therefore, cannot follow the progress of the debate.
• The duty of the affirmative with respect to the issues.
In debates in real life, the affirmative must establish
all the issues, unless the negative admits one or some of
them. If the affirmative fails to prove any one of the
issues, he loses the case; and, as he fails thus to make out
a prima facie case, the negative has no obligation to
present any evidences in his defense.
• The duty of the negative with respect to the issues.
Again, in debates in real life, the negative may
choose among the issues presented by the affirmative
what ones to admit and what ones to deny. He may admit
all the issues except one and fight the affirmative on this
remaining one. In legal procedure, this choice of the
negative must be made known to the affirmative by
allegations in the pleadings. The purpose is to avoid
delay and thus secure a speedy administration of justice.
This process of determining what issues are admitted and
what issues are denied is called joining the issues. If the
negative succeeds in blocking the affirmative on any
issue, the negative wins.
What amount, or quantum, of evidence is necessary
to establish an issue? In civil cases, a preponderance of
evidence is enough. In criminal cases, such evidence as
is necessary to create in the mind of the judge the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt is necessary.
• The issues and winning or losing in contest debate.
In contest debate, debates held to give students of
argumentation and debate training in the application of
the theory and technique of the art, judges base their
decisions on the comparative skills of the debaters or
debating teams. A contest debate is not decided on the
merits of the case- neither on the strength of the evidence
presented nor on the strength of the arguments adduced.
It is decided on the basis of the ability of the debates-
their reasoning, their analysis of the question, the quality
of their language, their application of the rules of
argumentation and debate as an art, their ability to talk to
an audience, and the measure of preparation they
demonstrate.
Chapter VI
INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH
• General consideration.
Before a lawyer accepts a case, he first asks his
prospective clients to give him all the evidences
available. If there are witnesses, these must be examined.
If there are documents, these must be submitted so that
their authenticity and worth as evidence may be
ascertained. After he has decided to take up the case on
the basis of the evidence that he has gathered, he begins
his intensive. He consults the pertinent provisions of law,
determines the interpretations of the legal provisions in
the light of the opinions expressed by recognized legal
commentators, and reads the reports on cases which
involve the application of the law in question.
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
• Definition of research.
RESEARCH is thus the process of gathering from
all available sources of information such facts, data,
statistics, and inferences as are necessary to establish
one’s case and to overthrow the case of the opponent. A
study of evidences, forms of arguments, and fallacies is
necessary to make the work of research effective.
• Two methods of note-taking.
The researcher will naturally consider a great bulk
of information. Unless he proceeds with a definite
method, he will most likely fail to get the maximum
economy of time and the minimum loss of mental
energy. What he knows today he may not be able to
remember tomorrow. Unless he adopts a systematic
method of note-taking, he may waste of time and energy
in reading over again what he has already read. He must
not, therefore, trust to his memory.
There are two methods of note-taking. They are the
card system and the note-book system.
(a) THE CARD-SYSTEM.
These are the ADVANTAGES of the card-system:
(1) it is easy and convenient to remove from or add
to the pack new cards on any subject, as the
materials gathered from time to time may
demand;
(2) cards are much more convenient for use on the
platform in actual debate. The debater may
simply get the cards needed for instant use,
without the inconvenience of taking to the
platform the whole pack.
The following are the DISADVANTAGES:
(1) in the course of the research, the debater may
lose some of the cards; and
(2) the cards are too small for long quotations or
extracts and for preserving clippings.
(b) THE NOTE-BOOK SYSTEM.
These are the ADVANTAGES of the note-book
system:
(1) the note-book is more handy to carry around;
(2) the note-book is more inconvenient for taking
down long quotations or extracts and for
preserving clippings.
The following are the DISADVANTAGES:
(1) the note-book is not very convenient in sorting
and filling the materials gathered. It is not easy
to remove from it a page or to add to it a new
one, as the logical sequence of the information
obtained may demand.
(2) the note-book is not convenient for platform
use.
• Accuracy in documentation.
The researcher must be very careful in copying
quotations or extracts from his sources of information.
He should give credit to whom credit is due. References
to “a recognized authority” or to “a famous states-man”
or to a “well-known political scientist,” are practically
useless. References like these create the impression that
the debater is insincere-that he is simply bluffing. If the
researcher will quote at all, he should do so very
accurately; he should enclose in quotation marks
passages lifted from the works of others and use asterisks
to indicate any words omitted. He should give the title of
the book from which he is quoting a passage, the name
of the author, the edition, the page where the material
quoted occurs, and such other matters as may be
necessary for the reader, the hearer, or the adversary to
verify the information.
Accuracy in documentation, therefore, is the
precision or correctness of noting the sources of
information used in argumentation.
• What should the researcher look for?
The researcher should look for all available
information- facts, data, statistics, inferences-on both
sides of the proposition. On his side, so that he may be
able to refute the arguments that may be advanced by his
opponent. And in his research on both sides of the
questions, it is essential that he should get all the
information available on every phase of the question-
political, economic, sociological, aesthetic.
• What guide should the researcher use?
Colleges and universities have adequate libraries to
meet the needs of their students. In the Philippines we
have the National Library. These Libraries have
published bibliographies and card indexes. These make
references handy. In some cases, students should consult
their professors.
• The work of assimilation.
As soon as all the available information has been
gathered, the researcher should determine the quality of
his materials. Through judicious discrimination, he will
be able to ascertain which materials are of use and which
are not of use. The materials found useful should be
organize.
Whatever portions of the organized materials may
be needed for a particular audience should then be
assimilated. Assimilation is the process of converting the
materials gathered and determined useful to advance
one’s case into the fibers of one’s finished arguments.
Assimilation demands the constant application of the
processes of thought on the materials gathered until the
ideas expressed in them become a part of one’s stock of
information or knowledge; so that one can express these
ideas in one’s own language colored by one’s own
personality.
To commit to memory quotations lifted from the
work of others is not to assimilate them. The work of
assimilation demands conscientious self-training and
constant practice.
* THE SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.
The sources of evidence are persons, documents,
and things.
A PERSON is a human being who, possessed of
some measure of intelligence, transmits information by
word of mouth, in writing, or by voluntary signs. He is
called a WITNESS.
DOCUMENTS are manuscripts or pieces of printed
matter regarded as conveying information or evidence.
Examples are a deed of sale, a mortgage contract, a
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
marriage certificate, a letter written by one person to
another.
THINGS, as source of evidence, are tangible
objects presented to the senses of those who will judge.
A knife, a bullet, a watch, a hat, is a thing. Whenever a
person is presented as an object of observation, possessed
of characteristics in common with things, that person is a
thing as a source of evidence. When the accused in a
homicide case, for example, interposes self-defense and
his counsel presents him in open court so that the findings
of the judge on his physical build, his stature, his physical
frailty, may be entered in the records, he is a thing as a
source of evidence.
• FALLACIES
Logical fallacies are like landmines; easy to
overlook until you find them the hard way. A logical
fallacy is an error in reasoning common enough to
warrant a fancy name. Knowing how to spot and identify
fallacies is a priceless skill. It can save you time, money,
and personal dignity. There are two major categories of
logical fallacies, which in turn break down into a wide
range of types of fallacies, each with their own unique
ways of trying to trick you into agreement.
a. Ad Hominem Fallacy
- When people think of “arguments,” often their first
thought is of shouting matches riddled with
personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run
contrary to rational arguments. In logic and
rhetoric, a personal attack is called ad
hominem. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the
man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning,
ad hominem replaces logical argumentation with
attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.
- Ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an
insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in
support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people
proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their
claims. Use of an ad hominem is commonly known
in politics as “mudslinging.” Instead of addressing
the candidate’s stance on the issues, or addressing
his or her effectiveness as a statesman or
stateswoman, ad hominem focuses on personality
issues, speech patterns, wardrobe, style.
b. Strawman Argument
- It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s
argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman
argument is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless,
scarecrow. In the strawman argument, someone
attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really
hold. Instead of contending with the actual
argument, he or she attacks the equivalent of a
lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy,
which the opponent never intended upon defending
anyway.
- This fallacy can be unethical if it’s done on
purpose, deliberately mischaracterizing the
opponent’s position for the sake of deceiving
others. But often the strawman argument is
accidental, because the offender doesn’t realize
they are oversimplifying a nuanced position, or
misrepresenting a narrow, cautious claim as if it
were broad and foolhardy.
c. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad
ignorantiam
- Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in
support of an argument, it’s liable to be a fallacious
appeal to ignorance. Naturally, we are all ignorant
of many things, but it is cheap and manipulative to
allow this unfortunate aspect of the human
condition to do most of our heavy lifting in an
argument.
- Interestingly, appeal to ignorance is often used to
bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once.
Consider the following two claims:
“No one has ever been able to prove definitively
that extra-terrestrials exist, so they must not be
real.”
“No one has ever been able to prove definitively
that extra-terrestrials do not exist, so they must
be real.”
d. Slippery Slope Fallacy
- You may have used this fallacy on your parents as
a teenager: “But, you have to let me go to the party!
If I don’t go to the party, I’ll be a loser with no
friends. Next thing you know I’ll end up alone and
jobless living in your basement when I’m 30!” The
slippery slope fallacy works by moving from a
seemingly benign premise or starting point and
working through a number of small steps to an
improbable extreme.
- This fallacy is not just a long series of causes. Some
causal chains are perfectly reasonable. There could
be a complicated series of causes that are all
related, and we have good reason for expecting the
first cause to generate the last outcome. The
slippery slope fallacy, however, suggests that
unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely when
there is just not enough evidence to think so.
e. Circular Argument (petitio principii)
- When a person’s argument is just repeating
what they already assumed beforehand, it’s not
arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a
circular argument or circular reasoning. If someone
says, “The Bible is true; it says so in the Bible”—
that’s a circular argument. They are assuming that
the Bible only speaks truth, and so they trust it to
truthfully report that it speaks the truth, because it
says that it does. It is a claim using its own
conclusion as its premise, and vice versa, in the
form of “If A is true because B is true; B is true
because A is true”. Another example of circular
reasoning is, “According to my brain, my brain is
reliable.” Well, yes, of course we would think our
brains are in fact reliable if our brains are the one’s
telling us that our brains are reliable.
- Circular arguments are also called petitio principii,
meaning “Assuming the initial [thing]”
(commonly mistranslated as “begging the
question”). This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous
argument where it only appears to be an argument.
It’s really just restating one’s assumptions in a way
that looks like an argument. You can recognize a
circular argument when the conclusion also appears
as one of the premises in the argument.
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
f. Hasty Generalization
- A hasty generalization is a general statement
without sufficient evidence to support it. A hasty
generalization is made out of a rush to have a
conclusion, leading the arguer to commit some sort
of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted
conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration.
- Normally we generalize without any problem; it is
a necessary, regular part of language. We make
general statements all the time: “I like going to the
park,” "Democrats disagree with Republicans,”
"It’s faster to drive to work than to walk," or
"Everyone mourned the loss of Harambe, the
Gorilla.”.
g. Red Herring Fallacy (ignoratio elenchi)
- A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the
argument typically with some sentiment that
seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic.
This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like
the current topic and wants to detour into
something else instead, something easier or safer to
address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to
the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough
to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it
confuses and distracts.
h. False Dilemma/False Dichotomy
- This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-
white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false
dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line
of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two
when there are in fact more options to choose from.
Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the
other thing, or both things together (they don’t
exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole
range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and
forty-five. However, it may happen, the false
dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the
range of options.
- The false dilemma fallacy is often a
manipulative tool designed to polarize the
audience, heroizing one side and demonizing the
other. It’s common in political discourse as a way
of strong-arming the public into supporting
controversial legislation or policies.
i. Tu Quoque Fallacy
- The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also
called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it
distracts from the argument by pointing out
hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t
solve the problem, or prove one’s point, because
even hypocrites can tell the truth. Focusing on the
other person’s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In
this way, using the tu quoque typically deflects
criticism away from yourself by accusing the other
person of the same problem or something
comparable.
- The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame,
but it really only distracts from the initial problem.
To be clear, however, it isn’t a fallacy to simply
point out hypocrisy where it occurs. For example,
Jack may say, “yes, I committed adultery. Jill
committed adultery. Lots of us did, but I’m still
responsible for my mistakes.” In this example, Jack
isn’t defending himself or excusing his behavior.
He’s admitting his part within a larger problem.
The hypocrisy claim becomes a tu quoque fallacy
only when the arguer uses some (apparent)
hypocrisy to neutralize criticism and distract from
the issue.
j. Causal Fallacy
- The causal fallacy is any logical breakdown when
identifying a cause. You can think of the causal
fallacy as a parent category for several different
fallacies about unproven causes.
One causal fallacy is the false cause or non causa
pro causa ("not the-cause for a cause") fallacy,
which is when you conclude about a cause without
enough evidence to do so. Consider, for example,
“Since your parents named you ‘Harvest,’ they
must be farmers.” It’s possible that the parents are
farmers, but that name alone is not enough
evidence to draw that conclusion. That name
doesn’t tell us much of anything about the parents.
This claim commits the false cause fallacy.
- Another causal fallacy is the post hoc fallacy. Post
hoc is short for post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after
this, therefore because of this"). This fallacy
happens when you mistake something for the cause
just because it came first. The key words here are
“post” and “propter” meaning “after” and “because
of.” Just because this came before that doesn’t
mean this caused that. Post doesn’t prove propter.
A lot of superstitions are susceptible to this fallacy.
- For example: Yesterday, I walked under a ladder
with an open umbrella indoors while spilling salt in
front of a black cat. And I forgot to knock on wood
with my lucky dice. That must be why I’m having
such a bad day today. It’s bad luck.”
- Now, it’s theoretically possible that those things
cause bad luck. But since those superstitions have
no known or demonstrated causal power, and
“luck” isn’t exactly the most scientifically reliable
category, it’s more reasonable to assume that those
events, by themselves, didn’t cause bad luck.
Perhaps that person’s "bad luck" is just their own
interpretation because they were expecting to have
bad luck.
k. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad
verecundiam)
- This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority.
This misuse of authority can occur in a number of
ways. We can cite only authorities — steering
conveniently away from other testable and concrete
evidence as if expert opinion is always correct. Or
we can cite irrelevant authorities, poor authorities,
or false authorities.
- Like many of the other fallacies in this list,
the argumentum ad verecundiam (“argument from
respect”) can be hard to spot. It’s tough to see,
sometimes, because it is normally a good,
responsible move to cite relevant authorities
supporting your claim. It can’t hurt. But if all you
have are authorities, and everyone just has to “take
their word for it” without any other evidence to
show that those authorities are correct, then you
have a problem.
- Often this fallacy refers to irrelevant
authorities — like citing a foot doctor when
THE ART OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (PRELIM)
trying to prove something about psychiatry;
their expertise is in an irrelevant field. When
citing authorities to make your case, you need to
cite relevant authorities, but you also need to
represent them correctly, and make sure their
authority is legitimate.
Suppose someone says, “I buy Hanes™ underwear
because Michael Jordan says it’s the best.” Michael
Jordan may be a spokesperson, but that doesn’t
make him a relevant authority when it comes to
underwear. This is a fallacy of irrelevant authority.
authorities are correct, then you have a problem.
- Now consider this logical leap: “four out of five
dentists agree that brushing your teeth makes your
life meaningful.” Dentists generally have expert
knowledge about dental hygiene, but they aren’t
qualified to draw far-reaching conclusions about its
existential meaningfulness. This is a fallacy of
misused authority. For all we know, their beliefs
about the “meaning of life” are just opinions, not
expert advice.
- Or take the assumption that, “I’m the most
handsome man in the world because my mommy
says so.” Now, while I might be stunningly
handsome, my mom’s opinion doesn’t prove it.
She’s biased. She’s practically required to tell me
I’m handsome because it’s her job as a mother to
see the best in me and to encourage me to be the
best I can be. She’s also liable to see me through
“rose-colored glasses.” And, in this case, she’s not
an expert in fashion, modeling, or anything dealing
in refined judgments of human beauty. She’s in no
position to judge whether I’m the most handsome
man in the world. Her authority there is illusory
(sorry mom).
l. Equivocation (ambiguity)
- Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or
sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive,
or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing
but actually saying something else. Equivocation
comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and
refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two
different things. Another word for this is
ambiguity.
- When it’s poetic or comical, we call it a “play on
words.” But when it’s done in a political speech, an
ethics debate, or in an economics report, for
example, and it’s done to make the audience think
you’re saying something you’re not, that’s when it
becomes a fallacy. Sometimes, this is not a
“fallacy” per se, but just a miscommunication. The
equivocation fallacy, however, has a tone of
deception instead of just a simple
misunderstanding. Often this deception shows up
in the form of euphemisms, replacing unpleasant
words with “nicer” terminology.
m. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
- Argumentum ad misericordiam is Latin for
“argument to compassion.” Like the ad
hominem fallacy above, it is a fallacy of relevance.
Personal attacks, and emotional appeals, aren’t
strictly relevant to whether something is true or
false. In this case, the fallacy appeals to the
compassion and emotional sensitivity of others
when these factors are not strictly relevant to the
argument. Appeals to pity often appear as
emotional manipulation.
- For example, how can you eat that innocent little
carrot? He was plucked from his home in the
ground at a young age and violently skinned,
chemically treated, and packaged, and shipped to
your local grocer, and now you are going to eat him
into oblivion when he did nothing to you. You
really should reconsider what you put into your
body.” Obviously, this characterization of carrot-
eating is plying the emotions by personifying a
baby carrot like it’s a conscious animal, or, well, a
baby.
n. Bandwagon Fallacy
- The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is
true (or right, or good) because other people
agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be
included under this label, since they are often
indistinguishable in practice. The ad
populum fallacy (Lat., “to the
populous/popularity”) is when something is
accepted because it’s popular. The concensus
gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people”) is when
something is accepted because the relevant
authorities or people all agree on it. The status
appeal fallacy is when something is considered
true, right, or good because it has the reputation of
lending status, making you look “popular,”
“important,” or “successful.”
- This tactic is common among advertisers. “If you
want to be like Mike (Jordan), you’d better eat your
Wheaties.” “Drink Gatorade because that’s what all
the professional athletes do to stay hydrated.”
“McDonald’s has served over 99 billion, so you
should let them serve you too.” The form of this
argument often looks like this: “Many people do or
think X, so you ought to do or think X too.”
- One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the
broad acceptance of some claim or action is not
always a good indication that the acceptance is
justified. People can be mistaken, confused,
deceived, or even willfully irrational. And when
people act together, sometimes they become even
more foolish — i.e., “mob mentality.” People can
be quite gullible, and this fact doesn’t suddenly
change when applied to large groups.