A Fallacy Debate Paper
A Fallacy Debate Paper
The following is first presidential debate on domestic policy by President Barrack Obama and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney. Recorded by Yubi Yoo on you tube Oct3, 2012.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qg4k8Ldhsg). Obama begins on addressing the tax code to, which he argues needs to be aligned to suit both the wealthy and the poor people. This debate reveals that the U.S., economists have been unsuccessful in merging the fissile/gap between higher income earners to low income earners. The central economical plan described by Romney suggests hefty and practically unbalance approach. If there cannot be ways of clearing 3trillion dollars deficit, then Romney does not want to raise taxes and increase income for the lower income earners.
Romney retaliates by arguing that President Obama is not considering the safety of jobs, as well as more jobs creation. In my own point of view Obama’s argument potentially promotes the creation of more jobs and increased income, since the tax to be paid would help in improving annual general earnings. Furthermore, the economy would improve because taxies help in pulling up the state’s earnings hence increased balance of the income scale. Romney revealed that rising taxes does not solve the issue of tax inequity, but it increases the fissure between the senior income earners and the low earners. According to the deficit reduction policy mentioned by Obama indicates that wealthy people would be eligible to a little bit higher tax payments to enable the country to clear the current deficit. This argument portrays critical analysis on a reformed argument of balancing the deficit; as well we fair judgment on the poor citizens. Furthermore, this debate provides an ideological approach towards curbing economical disparities in the entire country. On the school, and education development strategy President Obama argued that Senator Romney needs not considerate on the future of American citizens.
Argument 2
The title is “how to win an argument” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_IuaZ5Wrn0). This argument clip provides steps on how to win an argument as follows: The first rule is to be quiet and keeping one’s voice low and concentrating on the opponent’s version of reasoning. Secondly provide facts and figures since the better one gets prepared with facts and figures the better and position one gets to challenge their opponent. Some time one can fake his argument and make it perfectly convincing to the opponent since one’s confidence could be a perfect to convince their partners or challengers. The third rule is to listen keenly since in listening one finds opportunity for countering the debater’s opinion. Additionally, the opponent continuous talking provides ample time for one to formulated counter attack questions and intrusion. One should also stop worrying about what they should say next rather they should concentrate on fact and figures at hand. Achilles heel should be the fourth step. In this step, one should find their opponents weakness and exploit it fully. For example, one could order some food staff or find sometime like a piece of new activity to turn away their opponents from the argument. This should be persistently done until one wins their opponent’s attention. Furthermore, one should even ask a further question in making sure that the opponent compromises and fails to concentrate on what they have earlier said. The fifth step should be on focusing and remaining firm on the track avoiding tangency. More so, one should not argue for the sake of arguing rather one should stick to the point and subject remembering what they need. One does not need to be right in achieving their goal, but one needs to achieve their goal. The Saul purpose of this argument should be achieving the ultimate goal (winning the argument). Six gets to be apologizing, when one apologizes for some little mistakes he or she disarms their opponents. This fallacy seems to work since at the end of the clip one of the debaters gets defeated by his opponent. The argument appeals to the people’s cognitive thoughts in approaching various arguments.
The Third argument: (http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/)
The letter gets to be about principle Jody Greenberger who addresses her students while standing on the roof of the school. She had worn a puff suit standing adjacent to a bubbling emitter. Furthermore, she spends her day working on the covering of the school to prize students for meeting their reading goals. This action displays her incredibly fascinating actions that left the students wondering if she was worthy upstairs. Looking at this argument from a critical point of view, one might think of the act as a fallacy deal the news writer and the individual being addressed. Focusing this argument from that dimension leaves no other thought, but trying to evaluate the sense in the argument. Furthermore, this argument provides one with the reason for creatively focusing on the news as a conspiracy theory prepared by some entertainers to gaggle peoples mind. On the other hand, this fallacy could be the reason why some journalists creatively make up imaginations and put them on papers to entertain.
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
