Developing a Complex Argument

Abruptly change the subject and cite an unrelated censorship case, avoiding engagement with the claim.

Ignore the mention of slippery slope as irrelevant, stating that censorship is absolutely necessary to protect minors.

Claim that the slippery slope fallacy is always applicable, thus reversing the burden of proof onto the opponent.

Discuss and support the idea that slippery slopes sometimes occur, but add context showing that it is not an inevitable outcome of internet governance.

When the writer wants to dismiss the opposing argument entirely.

When the writer wants to confuse the readers with contradictory information.

When the writer can attack the opposing argument with strong evidence.

When there are opposing sources that acknowledge the strength of the opposing argument.

Because presenting weaker points later creates contrast making your arguments seem stronger in comparison.

To convince readers immediately that other perspectives are invalid without even discussing them further.

To emphasize others’ viewpoints as superior while undermining one's own perspective unintentionally.

By acknowledging strong opposition points first, writers can address these convincingly before asserting their own claims.

Accepting that some might find his proposal shocking before emphasizing its practical benefits.

Describing the plight of the poor as undeniable but arguing against immediate action.

Admitting there may be other solutions before presenting why they would be less effective than his own.

Acknowledging economic concerns only to highlight their triviality compared to moral considerations.

To distract the audience from the main argument being presented.

To disprove the opposing argument by highlighting its weaknesses exclusively.

To focus on minor details and undermine the importance of major claims.

To show understanding of different perspectives and strengthen their own position.

Agreeing with certain aspects of the information before presenting their own views.

Sharing personal anecdotes that indirectly relate to the topic at hand to add emotional appeal.

Emphasizing common ground in order to build rapport with those who hold opposing views.

Presenting counter-evidence that directly challenges the credibility of the information.

Causes readers to question whether the author truly believes the argued position.

Typically results in decreased interest in the content since it lacks a firm position.

Increases perceived objectivity of the author and therefore potentially increases readership trust.

Leads readers to doubt the authenticity of the given piece due to its overly accommodating nature.

Analyzing logical fallacies within the claim to question its validity.

Acknowledging all strengths found within the claim before presenting any critique.

Avoiding mention of any evidence that might support facets of the claim under scrutiny.

Using complex vocabulary and technical jargon excessively to confuse readers about the claim’s merit.

Logos

Pathos

Ethos

Anecdote

Minimizing - Suggests ideas pose no threat to challenge the status quo.

Equating - Presents equal footing to other discussed concepts regardless of impact or merit.

Overshadowing - Highlights other ideas and overpowers potentially valid points made earlier in discussions.

Elevating - Gives credit to superior thinking intelligence behind concept.