The art of an argument. Occupations such as lawyers and lobbiests rely on the skill of arguing to do their jobs. There are two different types of arguments: strong and valid. A strong argument is when the evidence is very convincing but the conclusion might not necessarily be true. In a valid argument, the conclusion is always undeniable so the strength of the argument comes from the facts.
A lawyer that is in defense of a murder suspect would use a strong argument to fight the case. Because it is unknown whether the defendent is the actual murderer or not, the evidence used to support the argument must be strong enough to convince the jury of his innocence. "The defendent was visiting his grandma in the hospital, so therefore he could not have murdered the victim who was over 50 miles away."Although it is a good argument, there are still ways the defendent could have committed the crime.
Now lets say that the defendent was still found guilty. Somebody viewing this hearing could make a valid argument by saying, "Looks like he's going to be locked up for at least a quarter century." This is a valid argument because the minimum prision sentence for somebody convicted of murder is 25 years. The sentence can be extend however, for the rest of the convict's life.
And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner
Dear Melvin,
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was very creative how you introduced your examples. It made it more interesting for me to imagine the case and the strong versus valid arguments. I also liked that you included where arguing is used in professions. However, my favorite part of your post was your closing statement "boom goes the dynamite" I always respect an avid Tosh.o fan! You made it pretty clear in your introduction what the difference between the two arguments was and I believe that will help readers understand if they still were unaware. Keep up the good work Melvin! I am looking forward to your future blogs!
sincerely yours,
hb1