English 211 Blog Three

1) You should have read up to Chapter 13 in EA. Let's quickly review Chapter 5's "Fallacies of
Argument." Name the fallacies of argument in pathos (emotion), ethos (ethical), and logos
(logical). After defining the different fallacies, define one fallacial argument you've heard either
against or for the existence of God (for example, the arguments found in the article above, "Five
Arguments For and Against the Existence of God." What's the weak point of the argument?
Where's the fallacy found within its structure?
Pathos:Scare Tactics- when legitimate fear is turned into a panic, Either-Or Choices- when an
argument is reduced to two options with a clear correct answer, Slippery Slope- one tiny wrongdoing leading to a landslide of more wrong doing (butterfly effect), Overly Sentimental Appealstugging on heartstrings to distract from facts, Bandwagon Appeals-urge people to follow the
same path; Ethos: False Authority-when writers offer themselves or others as sufficient authority,
Dogmatism- a certain position is the only one that could be true, Ad Hominem- attack the
character of the person who you are arguing against, Stacking the Deck- showing only one side
of the story; Logos: Hasty Generalizations- an inference made with insufficient evidence, Faulty
Causality- because one event follows another, then t must be caused by that event, Begging the
Question- the claim can't be true because the nature of that which the claim is being made about,
Equivocation- half truths that make lies appear true, Non Sequiter-an argument that does not
connect logically, Straw Man- attack an argument that no one is making, Red Herring- changes
the subject abruptly to distract the reader, Faulty Analogy- inaccurate or unimportant
comparisons
One fallacy that I have often heard for the existence is Dogmatism, many of those that believe in
Christianity often dont even take time to consider other beliefs as they think that theirs is the
only one that could be correct. This article could be stacking the deck in a way, though it
provides some sides of the argument it does not provide all?
2) Define "arguments of fact." What are factual arguments? Define "arguments of definition."
Consider the argument for the existence of God. Is it an argument of fact or an argument of
definition? Why? Is it neither? Why?
Arguments that use fact as their evidence to persuade the audience. Arguments of Definitionbased on something only BEING that thing because it fits a certain criteria based on the
consensus of men. The argument is neither an argument of fact or of definition, because there is
no solid evidence of the existence of God and there is no universal definition of what God is that
everyone can agree on.
3) Define "argument of evaluation." Evaluate how the Fish Bowl discussion proceeded. What did
you agree with, what did you disagree with, and what were you neutral on? What surprised you
about the Fish Bowl Discussion?

An argument of evaluation is taking stock of it and its components and forming an opinion/belief
based on that. Today's fishbowl discussion went from giving a summary of our readings to
asking the question "why God would let bad things happen", to if God was deistic, to free-will,
to the whether the bible should be taken literally/at face value or not. I agree with the idea that
free-will allows us to make our own decisions and thus we can choose to do good or evil. I
disagree with the complete infallibility of the bible. I was surprised by some people's responses
concerning the woman who was raped while working with prisoners.
4) Lastly, choose one of the articles that you did not focus on during the Fish Bowl (example, if
you were Group 1 and focused on Allen Stair's article, choose between
Cheshire's Guernica article or Dr. Pattanaik's TEDTalks lecture). Determine the style of argument
the orator/author used. Did he use figurative language? Did he use any tropes? What made his
style of argument appropriate for his claim/thesis? Do you think it was a successful argument?
Did he use the appropriate style? Why/why not?
I looked at the TedTalk lecture. He used a combination of all three forms of argument; he's an
expert in myth, he referenced the logical progression of how cultural beliefs could change a
person, and he referenced how people feel when talking about their own beliefs and what is
important to them. He only used it in the conversational sense and not to create some incredibly
deep meaning. His style of argument fit his thesis that religion is subject in that it was in a
conversational sort of tone which lends itself to being more open minded. Yes, because he talked
about how many different people believe different things and how each of them believe that they
are the ones who know the truth.