The Five Characteristics Of Argument Field

The five characteristics of Argument Fields is that they are human creation, they are developed by people with shared goals, they develop specialized language and rules, people can belong to many fields, and a field survives only as long as it serves the common purpose of its members and can adapt and change.

Ad hominem is a fallacy of reasoning where the person attacks the person rather than their argument. An example of ad hominem is making a comment about how someone can’t be right because they have stains all over their clothes. The Slippery Slope is a fallacy of appeal which reduces a conclusion beyond logic to an absurd extent. An example of slippery slope is saying that since smoking causes cancer, that by smoking in public a person

For visual argument, one test is to see how a speaker establishes his/her credibility as an arguer. If a speaker can’t establish credibility then there is less reason for an audience to hear out their argument. A second test is to see if the arguer uses appropriate sources. By not using appropriate sources then that diminishes the credibility of the arguer.

One aspect argumentation in the law is the emphasis of evidence. Evidence being crucial to make an arguers argument valid and credible. One aspect of argument on business is the emphasis on ethics. Ethics is important to make certain that an arguer is not taking advantage of

An example of how my team and others established credibility was the use of credible sources. A couple times in the argument the affirmation or negation would question a source and if they replied that it came from a source like the Huffington Post or the Daily Mail then it seemed less credible than if had come from a peer reviewed source.

I believe that the PDT assignment could be improved by somehow getting the audience more involved with the argument. Since the argument is supposed to be for the audience I would like to see a way of maybe the audience assigning points for each claim backed up with sufficient evidence for the affirmative side and each well cited refutation also earning points for their respective teams. This way the audience is more engaged and the arguers know where they stand in the argument.

SECTION