from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. The presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments.
- n. Deductive reasoning in debate.
- n. A debate.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. Inference based on reasoning from given propositions
- n. An exchange of arguments
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. The act of forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying them to the case in discussion; the operation of inferring propositions, not known or admitted as true, from facts or principles known, admitted, or proved to be true.
- n. Debate; discussion.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. The setting forth of reasons together with the conclusion drawn from them; also, the premises and conclusion so set forth.
- n. A course of reasoning; discussion; debate.
- n. Synonyms See reasoning.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning
- n. a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
Natural mathematicians do not believe that logical content in argumentation is possible.
An important part of their argumentation is the thesis that the possibilities of a successful decentralization of production decisions in a centrally planned economy is depending upon the existence of a rationally constructed system of prices, including
But this form of argumentation is hardly new for Carter, who seems to enjoy misrepresenting the beliefs, motives, and actions of "conservative" Christians.
While Carter's motives appear questionable (is he REALLY concerned for the status of women in the Church?) and his argumentation is certainly lacking, it would be more constructive to address, thoughtfully, a point that his vapid criticism nonetheless raises; why it is that women are not permitted to preach as men are in the Church (the question of ordination aside ...)?
Locke did not claim that all appeals to authority in argumentation are fallacious, however.
It would be one thing if you rebutted what he has written, but your line of argumentation is nothing more than a fallacious personal attack.
The problem, as Arthur and Hofstadter both point out, is that this line of attack creates a recursive loop in argumentation, a double bind where nothing is verifiable because we've decided to question the validity of verification.
I love people who live in such a bubble that they think this level of argumentation is unanswerable.
Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.
This sort of confused scattershot argumentation is a sign of desperation.