Refutation

Five Devices of Refutation

Turning the Tables
This means adopting the opposing argument and turning it so as to use it against the case. It takes an argument and uses it to bolster the position of the one refuting.

Reducing to an Absurdity
This tool requires taking up the argument of the opposing viewpoint as if it were true and then showing that it leads to an absurdity.

Dilemma
This can take on three forms. It is possible to take the opposing viewpoint and reduce it into two alternatives and then disprove each of the two positions.

It is also possible to take the argument and make it into two alternatives that neither can be the answer.

A third way is to make it into two alternatives which include a greater and lesser evil, of which the audience will choose the lesser.

Example: In trying to propose a new paved road to replace a dirt road, the Dilemma might be used this way against the opponents. Their main objection is the additional $180 per year in property taxes it will bring for each and every resident.

“We can put a road in and increase everyone’s taxes by 50 cents per day for the privilege of using this new road or we can leave it to consider the future in hopes of the economy getting better.

"In the mean time, the cost of maintenance of a dirt road and the wear and tear and maintenance on our cars will continue to increase. The future cost of the road will also increase.

“So for less than a weekly trip to the car wash, we can have a clean dry road and reduce the dust in our homes along our new road or continue to replace springs and shocks and clean the dust and think about it tomorrow when it will cost more.”

Residues
Residues are like a dilemma only the proposition is divided into all of its possibilities and then eliminate the false or undesirable outcomes. The only true or the best is left standing.

Enforcing the Consequences
Similar to reducing to an absurdity, it takes an argument and shows that if carried out to its logical conclusion it is undesirable or illogical.

Consider the idea that there needs be an opposition in all things, a popular eastern philosophy and religious tenet. You need bad to appreciate the good, pain to enjoy pleasure.

If you carry that thought to its logical conclusion, it may be like the guy hitting his head against a wall. When he was asked asked why he was doing that he said because it felt so much better when he didn’t and he wanted to appreciate that feeling of not hurting.

Taken a step or two further, one would need to die to fully appreciate life, though it's unknown whether one could appreciate life when one's deceased. Even if you believe you went into some other life form, you could still no longer enjoy the life you have right now. It would be an entirely different life if it were true.

So not only is the philosophy or belief illogical, it doesn’t withstand some of the most basic truth tests let alone, the best truth test of all, common sense.

I do not need to have pain to know the joy of feeling great. I do not need heartache to appreciate the wonder of being in love. I don’t have to grow old and have aches and pain to enjoy my youth.

It may sound like something smart to repeat, but there is no scientific evidence let alone evidence in the Bible that such a belief is a truth. It is just a philosophy. It is not true.

Issues of Value

This image stirs something very deep within me, a number of values that drive the choices I make every day; family, fatherhood, security, adventure, travel, time well spent.

Can you identify your values and their contexts?

When a comparison or social judgment is advanced in an argument, the issue becomes an argument of value.

Value arguments are derived when:

• You evaluate - Abortion is wrong.
• You compare - The rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother.
• You argue the harms - Abortion is dangerous.
• You argue the advantages - Women's rights should be protected.
• You argue the disadvantages - The unborn's rights will be violated.

When you consider the constructive arguments presented in class, consider the values. You'll find them in the claim (abortion is wrong), in the grounds (the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother), even in the warrant (abortion is wrong because it takes a human life).

Assess Values Through Definition
What criteria are being used to define the value?
"Preserving the right to choose is in the best interest of the mother." What is meant by "best interest"?

Assess Values Through Relevance
What argument is more relevant to the value of human life, the rights of the mother? the rights of the unborn baby?
Is the value distorted or misrepresented to apply to the argument? "She gave up her rights when she had sex."

Assess the Value Through Importance
The right to choose versus the right to life.


American Value Systems (Argumentation and the Decision-Making Process, R. D. Rieke & M. O. Sillars)

Puritan - Pioneer - Peasant
Individuals have an obligation to themselves and the people around them, even their god, to work hard and remain righteous (virtue, hard work, temperance, dependability, sobriety).

Enlightenment
Individuals discover truths through reason (freedom, nature, science, liberty, individualism, knowledge, reason, progress).

Progressive Values
Progress is inherently good and continues to make things better (practicality, efficiency, change, evolution).

Transcendental Values
Intuition is higher than reason, the centrality of love for others, the Golden Rule (humanitarian, respect, truth, equality, love, kindness, compassion, friendship).

Personal Success
Pragmatic concern for material happiness of the individual, personal achievement (career, security, family, identity, health, dignity, consideration).

Collectivist Values
Some control of the excesses of freedom are perceived necessary (cooperation, unity, brotherhood, social good, order).