Argument

Question: argument???????? What is the best way to win an argument?

Answer: No matter what the discussion that starts an argument the most important thing to remember is 1. Remain Calm at all times. 2. Don't raise your voice 3. Listen to the other person.(Don't interrupt or Interject your opinion while they are talking) 4. State your opinion clearly and intelligently.(Don't talk fast and make sure you pronounce words correctly) 5. If the other person becomes upset to the point they start yelling, then just walk away. Leaving them to stew in their own anger sometimes lets them reflect on how calm you were and in doing so they realize you were right all along.

Question: Argument ? I wanted an argument with my boyfriend last night, is that bad? The reason is, i have something on my mind about his ex and i thought if we had an argument it would get us talking about it and it would be out in the open. Is this bad?!

Answer: no its not bad.

Question: How has the teleological argument of philosophy influenced society and the way people view themselves? The teleological argument is a philosophical argument that tries to derive the existence God from the design, structure, or purpose of the universe. For example, because the universe works like a machine and a machine must have been created by an intelligent person, then the universe must have been created by an intelligent being, which they call God. I want to what exactly is the teleological argument's affect on culture, society, or the way people view themselves.

Answer: I think the teleological argument fails because it cannot supply any concrete proof and relies solely on subjective experience and opinion. One's "purpose" could be another's madness, i.e the universe can be seen by one as beautiful and perfectly structured, and can be seen by others as cold, forbidding, and largely devoid of life. To one it may be a symphony and to another it is a chaotic place full of collisions, and burning stars, quasars, that really give us no meaning or necessity While it fails to prove God's existence, it does provide reason to believe that the existence of a higher power is not entirely illogical. It has influenced many to "humanize" the universe and think of it almost as a humanly created system

Question: What exactly is a counter argument in an essay and when can you use it? I understand that you go against your own view and then refute it later on. But for my essay topic ("Why were Japanese Canadians interned and not German or Italian Canadians?") there aren't two opposing sides to the argument, unless you say that the statement is false and Germans and Italians were interned, which is not 'exactly' true considering the Germans/Italians who were interned were charged, whereas the Japanese were not. So is it possible to have a counter argument in my essay, or not possible since there aren’t two sides to the argument?

Answer: Probably not. You usually only use counter arguments for persuasive essays and debates.

Question: If one attempts to write a deductive argument and it turns out to be invalid, then? If one attempts to write a deductive argument and it turns out to be invalid, then is the argument deductive and invalid, or invalid and inductive, or both? Why? For example, if a logic quiz were to give an argument and list for multiple choice valid, invalid, strong, and weak, how would you know what choice to make? After all, an invalid argument can be either strong or weak.

Answer: Deductive and inductive are simply forms of argument. Deductive are "all or nothing"; if it is invalid, your conclusion can be correct or true, but the argument is still invalid because of its structure. Inductive reasoning can be relatively strong or weak, depending on the nature of the evidence supporting the conclusion. So getting a deductive argument wrong just invalidates it, rather than making it inductive.

Question: What is a good counter argument to ocean pollution? I've decided to do a persuasive presentation on ocean pollution. I already have some information on the negative effects of ocean pollution, but my teacher is requiring that my argument must have a counter argument. So anyway, what is a good counter argument to ocean pollution? PS: if u hav any other ideas on what i can do a persuasive presentation on, please state them.

Answer: There is no good argument "for" polluting the ocean, but there are arguments as to why some people think that the chance that they are doing harm to the ocean is less important to them than cost or inconvenience of fixing a pollution problem. Poor cities along major rivers or coastlines might not have enough money to adequately treat their sewage. This is not a good argument "for" ocean pollution, but it is an explanation (you can't get blood out of a turnip) as to why they pollute. If they let the sewage build up on land, there could be major outbreaks of illness such as cholera. A farmer in Kansas may not even consider that fertilizers and pesticides from her farm could run off into the local streams and eventually flow down the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico. But, even if she did, would she have the money to build barriers or change her methods? She might decide that her contribution to the problem was too small to be important, or that that keeping her farm profitable and feeding her kids was more important than worrying about the health of the ocean. As we speak, the Drift oil terminal in Cook Inlet, Alaska is being threatened by a volcanic eruption---which could result in another big Alaskan oil spill. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/environment/s… Why was it built in such a crazy place? The answer is probably that it was the cheapest and most convenient place. The builders would have probably argued that the chance of a big spill were low. Why haven't they moved it? Cost and convenience. You could come up with lots of other examples where people make the choice to pollute because of cost or convenience. Your counterargument could be that the long range economic cost to the global economy of a ruined ocean is potentially far greater. In the past, polluters have used the argument that the oceans are so vast that they would soon dilute chemical pollution to harmless levels.., and that therefore the oceans are resilient. They might argue that the "small" possibility of "temporary, local" harm is not worth the the economic cost of preventing the pollution. Until fairly recently, most of the world did not realize how much cumulative damage was being done.

Question: What argument could i make on psychology and advertising? I have to give a persuasive speech. The topic has to be psychology, it could be anything interesting and i really want to talk about psychology and advertising but is there anything argument i could make with this?

Answer: Advertising takes many forms. You can show how using psychology in advertising helps to persuade people into making good decisions for themselves. Banks usually show happy prosperous people in their advertising. The idea of saving money and building a nest egg is a positive thing in a person's life. October is breast cancer awareness month. Think about how advertising this fact and encouraging women to get an annual mammogram will save the lives of many.

Question: What argument can you make about teen pregnancy? I have to write a 10 page argumentative paper and I want to write about teen pregnancy but can't think of an argument for it. Anyone have any ideas?

Answer: which side are u on? there is almost no good that can come out of teens having sex and getting pregnant. abortion is wrong wrong wrong and adoption is the only good thing that can come..it gives the teen a chance to make better decisions from there on and makes another family happy to get to adopt. even if you are marriedd, teen preg. is not a good choice becasue you are just soooo young and have so much to do with ur life.

Question: What argument was Lincoln trying to make through bible quotes? In his second inaugural adress, what argument was he trying to support by using the bible quotes he did? The quote was "woe unto the world because of offenses ; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offenses commeth" I'm having a hard time even understanding what the quote means and what point was he trying to back up... ok im starting to understand, i guess like all politicians he too contradicted himself in his supposed support for emancipation... because all he cared about was the union... “Letter to Horace Greeley. August 22, 1862 My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” It's a shame I kinda liked him. :(

Answer: First of all, the Bible quotation is from Matthew 18:7. Lincoln's second inaugural address is considered one of the greatest speeches in American history. (However, political speeches of that era used more complicated syntax than those of today.) Here's the text: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html Prior to this quotation in the speech, Lincoln talks about how, in the course of the Civil War, both sides asked for God's assistance, although the south was really asking God to help them to continue the practice of slavery. Lincoln then says that God cannot answer both side's prayers and quotes this passage from the Bible. He's saying that there will always be offenses in the world, but that those who commit the offenses will be punished (by God if not by man). He is referring to the offense of slavery. That letter to Greeley is a famous one; but when you say that "all he cared about was the union", you're oversimplifying Lincoln's beliefs. He despised slavery, but in his presidential oath (the same one that Obama took last week), he vowed to preserve the US constitution (and, of course, the US itself). Despite his hatred of slavery, however, he had a very tricky political situation. Some factions were calling for an end to slavery, some were more interested in ending the war and making peace with the south (either rejoining the union or as a separate country). Some border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland) practiced slavery but remained with the north, and Lincoln did not want to upset the citizens of those states with too harsh an attitude on slavery. Things could easily have gone differently in the Civil War; and if they had, the US (or what was left of it) would be a very different place today. --- If you read the section of the speech after this Bible quotation, Lincoln stresses that punishment for this offense was being dealt to both north and south, since both suffered tremendously in the war. Even though the north did not practice slavery, the entire nation was guilty of condoning it, and the entire nation was (at the time of this speech) being punished for it. And you should like Lincoln, who's often considered the greatest president in history. No politician can act entirely on his or her beliefs; the things a politician would like to do must be tempered by political realities and by the rule of law. In the end, Lincoln managed to end slavery and maintain the union. That's not to say that he had no flaws or never made poor decisions as president, but he did an incredibly good job. --- The quote in Lincoln's speech is from the King James translation. Here's a much looser translation of the same passage (from "The Message" Bible) in more modern English: "Hard times are inevitable, but you don't have to make it worse—and it's doomsday to you if you do." That's easier to understand, but without the beauty of the language of the King James version.

Question: How does the complexity argument against evolution compare to other emergent systems? One of the main arguments given against evolution is that living beings are too complex to be the result of non-random selection of random variation. I wonder how this compares to the emergent order seen in areas like economics, where even the systems needed to make something as simple as a pencil involve thousands of different actors, materials, and resources. If emergent order can come about between thousands or even millions of people to cooperate without any top-down overseer or creator, does that imply a deficiency in the argument against evolution?

Answer: The irreducible complexity argument is just another awful argument against evolution from overly religious scientist trying to justify their beliefs. Every singe complexity argument has been completely disregarded by everyone in the scientific community (unless you are funded by the templeton foundation in which case your main objective is to prove the existence of God. Last time i checked when doing science you use the evidence to find your answer. When trying to prove the existence of God you have your answer and now you're trying to find the evidence to support it). The eye was once thought to be "too complex" to have come from natural selection until people found out that earth worms have the ability to sense photons with the frontal lobe of their brains. It is now understood that the human eye is simply just an extension of our frontal lobe since we have relied on sight for millions of years our eye has obviously become much more complex than that of an earthworms. There are several more examples of this but you get the point. Read into the bacterial flagellum, and the evolution of the immune system for more info on how the irreducible complexity argument has failed and always will fail. Check out "Climbing Mt Improbable" by Dawkins. He has a great way of explaining how it works. Also check out "Judgement Day" on PBS's NOVA. It's about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trail in which you will see several examples of how irreducible complexity is nothing but a religious scam to justify teaching creation in schools. http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/

Question: What is a good argument for an essay based on why quebec wanted to become a seperate from canada? What is a good argument for an essay based on why quebec wanted to become a seperate from canada? Its for an essay and im really stuck. :( i am out of arguments and need more, with the websites.

Answer: What does this have to do with immigration?

Question: What is one major argument against anarchies that cannot be contradicted? We're doing a debate in our school of New Hampshire and our 3 person group needs an argument against anarchies in order to win. We need an argument that will leave our opponents dumbfounded and unable to answer.

Answer: Who will mantain order in society without a government? James Madison, one of the founding fathers and early Presidents, said that if men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Question: What is with this argument against a female president in the USA? Whenever I ask someone why they wouldn't want a female president in America they usually come up with the silliest argument: her period/menopause. As if when a woman is on her period she's an uncontrollable beast with no rationality?! Being on your period doesn't really change a girl at all. Yes, some can be bitchy, but that doesn't mean all are like that. Why do people always use this silly argument? Does anyone agreement that this is ridiculous?

Answer: Did you miss Hilary snapping at a person asking her a question in Africa? Remember she could have been elected President. Everyone on the liberal news blamed it on female issues. A CNN (woman) commentator said that she had a bad hair day and felt fat and was a little cranky. I don't think this should rule out a female president, but women can't go around blaming bad behavior on female issues then say don't use them against me when I want to do something. PMS was a legal defense for killing someone at one time Most of the time I have heard about the "it's that time of month" it came from a woman trying to excuse her actions and mood, very rarely have I heard a man say that is why she was acting that way. Women can't have it both way of being able to blame it on the monthly problem and then saying we shouldn't consider it as a liability The Silly argument as you call it is still being used because the silly excuse is still being used by women to defend their actions

Question: What would be the best idea to make an argument about obesity in a researched argument? I want to make an arguments on obesity in America in my research paper/argument. I was thinking of blaming American society but this might have limited information. I need 10 sources. What would be a good argument?

Answer: get facts about fast food in America. ex. there are 13,000 Mcdonald's restaurants in America.. it's much easier to stop and get a value meal rather than finding the nearest grapefruit. talk about kids who have working parents and are given some money, where are they going to grab something? they resort to fast food. Also, you can talk about how there is no incentives for Americans to put down the cheeseburger when they have pills to lower their cholesterol.their pills are paid for by who? the rest of Americans. (Public Health) argue that if we were responisble for our health we would make better decisions but because people pay for our medications there is no reason to be healthy.

Question: What is the proper way to formulate an argument, and what are the terms? What are the terms for an argument with true premises, and false conclusion(s). What about an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premises? What are the terms for an argument that have false premise(s) and true conclusion? Thanks for the terminology.

Answer: NO YOUR WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Question: What is the greatest problem with the God argument? I've read countless arguments on both sides of the religious debate, but I still can't find one single, irrefutable hole in the God argument. Every flaw I've managed to find in a religious person's argument for the existence of God can be somehow refuted. I understand that religious people bear the burden of proof, and I do not have to disprove God. But is there any one thing that religious people can't argue with? Some flaw in their reasoning that they can never explain? Don't pick on Christian people specifically - this should apply to the general concept of a God who sends people to hell and heaven and judges them.

Answer: "the general concept of a God who sends people to hell and heaven and judges them." Your premise is flawed. First of all, GOD Is....He Exists And He Is Real....He Is Also SOVEREIGN. This means He Has ALL POWER And Does As He Pleases....there is no one, no force, no foe that can resist or fight Him..or counsel Him. Second of all, GOD Is The Righteous Judge. As your Creator And Judge GOD Has the Power over life and death and He Makes All Of The Rules. And They are to be followed. There IS a consequence to disobeying GOD. Thirdly, GOD Sends no one to hell----people choose to go to hell by refusing and rejecting GOD. They have at all times the CHOICE NOT to go to hell. CHOOSE GOD And CHOOSE Heaven.

Question: Can a sound argument have a conditional as its conclusion where the consequent is false? Can't seem to figure this one out. A conditional can be true if both the antecedent and consequent are false, but can you have a conditional like that present as a conclusion for a sound argument. A sound argument is a valid argument that has all true premises and therefore a true conclusion. A valid arugment is when if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is GUARANTEED to be true.

Answer: Yes. The sun is not shining, therefore it may be night. The argument is sound and the conclusion conditional, but the consequent is false IF an eclipse is the cause of the sun's disappearance.

Question: What is a good counter argument to why people procrastinate? I am writing an essay and I need to know what a good counter argument is for my thesis. My thesis is that college students procrastinate because they are overwhelmed with all of the studying and homework. What is a good counter argument? I need people who disagree with my thesis to help me!!! Thank you!

Answer: Lack of motivation for school work, "I want it to be perfect" (i.e. homework assignment", "I don't know how to do it, it's too complex", "I work best under pressure", etc. There are a bunch of reasons why people procrastinate. I, personally, am not in denial. I know I procrastinate because I'd rather go to the movies with my friends or watch tv.. I know that because I procrastinate, I BECOME overwhelemed with homework, etc. because it builds up, and then I don't even know how or where to start..

Question: What is a cogent argument against global warming? I would like to hear a well-formed argument that does not try to make its point by bashing "liberal scientists", because that is an ad hominem attack, and not a valid argument. I am happy to hear a theological argument, because I realize that in arguments between "science" and "religion", people are looking at totally different things, not just disagreeing on the same points. Be nice. Thanks.

Answer: In spite of what the other posters have said, there is no cogent scientific argument against global warming. That is why you generally see the "discussion" devolve into casting political epithets like "liberal", "socialist", "communist" and "it's a tax scam to take over the world". At this point, the only possible argument against global warming comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition of the Great Flood [the flooding of the Mediterranean basin?] and God's promise to not destroy the world again. There is a problem with that argument, also. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. They were destroyed, by God, after the Flood. God never promised not to destroy our civilization, only not to destroy the world. For those of you who have that religious objection, please consider the subsequent history given in the Bible. How many times were humans cast out naked into the wilderness?

Question: What is your argument for why I should not eat fish? I would like to hear from some vegetarians, an argument for not eating fish. I am considering going vegan, and I want to know what you think about eating fish. I have been reading a lot about how bad beef, pork and chicken are, because the animals are treated very badly, and I watched a video narrated by Alec Baldwin documenting this. But, I would like to see similar evidence about fish. Are fish put through similar atrocities as Cow, Pigs and Chickens are? Also, what are the health risks of eating fish as opposed to beef, chicken or pork products?

Answer: Well, only you can know what is right for you, but I don't eat fish because 1. fish are animals, and vegetarians do not eat animals 2. fish feel pain and emotions 3. fishing is terribly damaging to the environment 4. we are overfishing, and the fish and most other sea animals cannot reproduce fast enough. All the other ocean life needs fish to survive, so no fish kills off whales, penguins etc. (haven't you seen Happy Feet?) 5. even farmed fishing is a terrible environment and I go back to the idea that fish are animals who feel and therefore do not deserve to be tortured like that to be on my plate. 6.) once the fish are gone, we are pretty much done for http://www.fishinghurts.com/ Good luck with your decision :)