An argument that fraternities should be abolished from campus because they contribute to underage drinking and do not uphold high academic standards could be countered by providing examples of fraternities that sponsor alcohol education programming for the campus and have members that have excelled academically (Walter, 1966). For example, inductive reasoning can be weak when claims are made too generally. Some arguments based on inductive reasoning will be more cogent, or convincing and relevant, than others. Instead, since conclusions are generalized based on observations or examples, conclusions are “more likely” or “less likely.” Despite the fact that this type of reasoning isn’t definitive, it can still be valid and persuasive. Inductive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, doesn’t result in true or false conclusions. While introductory speakers are initially attracted to inductive reasoning because it seems easy, it can be difficult to employ well. Though he also has a youtube video, most of his sources are non-video sources which are properly sourced themselves, in contrast, the only "real" source Con has refutes the claim that he's trying to make.Īs I mentioned previously, and Pro pointed out, Con provided evidence that was recorded in the 2000s, no ifs, and, or buts about it - one of his sources is literally an experiment conducted by non-professionals in tennis courts, as Con broke the resolution he is being penalized.Inductive reasoning reaches conclusions through the citation of examples and is the most frequently used form of logical reasoning (Walter, 1966). ![]() Con's only source that actually has a source sourced (remember youtube videos) actually contradicts the idea of the video, so, Pro wins this one. While Con employs *only* youtube videos and images, Pro actually provides substantive sources which effectively link and prove his claim. This point goes to Proĭropped Arguments: Con literally drops half of Pro's proofs from the first round such as: Circumnavigation, mathematical calculation of the shape of the earth, the argument of shifting constellations, the argument of the compression of spheres, and so on and so forth - even if Con successfully rebuked the two primary points of discussion he would still have lost hands down thanks to this basket full of proofs. but the source that his source cites, literally explains why the eclipse is indeed possible - and Pro pointed this out as well it was atmospheric reflection, and Con also doesn't respond to this. Lunar Eclipses: Pro argues that the shape of the shadow of the earth would be impossible if the earth was flat, and Con argues that eclipses mean that the earth is out of range? I don't follow Con's arguments, and he provides no substantiation nor elaboration for the claim- he tacks on that there was an impossible eclipse in 2011. As for those pointing out that Con had sources, they had zero methodology or actual sources backing them - they were youtube videos. he merely repeatedly asserts that conclusion to be a mirage. ![]() Pro points out that strong telescopes prove that, no, this isn't the case - but Con doesn't respond. Ships Disappearing over Horizon: Pro argues that ships wouldn't disappear over the horizon if the earth wasn't flat, and Con responds back that regardless of shape things would appear smaller as they get farther. Primarily the two discuss two principles, as such, these will be the main points covered in the vote. While the use of non-previous 19th century evidence will not influence the arguments, any evidence from after 1899 will result in that user getting penalized for conduct The Resolution: By the 19th Century, Evidence Already Showed Earth is NOT Flat
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |