Discussion Question Number One: Part Ten

What I've Learned


There's a lot that I've learned, definitely. I learned that you really have to listen to an argument being told, and really evaluate and analyze whether or not their statements and/or claims are worthy arguments. I learned there are many ways you can distinguish an argument as. There are terms such as "strawman" (refuting a person's claim by putting words in their mouth) and "mistaking the person for the claim" (unjustly assuming that anything relating to that person and the claims they present, because it happens to be them saying them, is false), which I learned about in the different concepts laid out in the Epstein book. I also learned about vague and ambiguous claims, and how it can lead to a weaker and less valid argument, because the argument is vague/ambiguous, which can lead to confusion, as it can say more than one thing without being clear to their audience.

I also learned about the concept of arguing backwards, as well as, cause and effect. The manner in which you decide to argue could be expressed by means of beginning from its result and moving backward, or vice versa. Sometimes, the result of arguing from effect to cause leads to a weak argument. In an instance, it was said that a man wore his jersey to a football game he attended. His team ended up winning, and because of that result/effect, he wore his jersey to every game. The cause to his clothing preference led to the result of the winning game, so to speak. Of course, there are many other concepts unmentioned that I've learned in this course.