Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because an accusation of denialism is both prescriptive and polemic: prescriptive because it carries implications that there is truth to the denied claim; polemic since the accuser implies that continued denial in the light of presented evidence raises questions about the other's motives. [10]
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky have argued that definitions of key terms, as well as the attention a society provides to a specific issue, such as genocide, is the product of mass media, as they mention in Manufacturing Consent: "A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy victims, whereas those ...
Historical negationism, [1] [2] also called historical denialism, is falsification [3] [4] or distortion of the historical record. This is not the same as historical revisionism, a broader term that extends to newly evidenced, fairly reasoned academic reinterpretations of history. [5]
She went to rehab seven different times, hoping she could stop. After her last conviction in 2013, she vowed to get her life together. She has been clean for 11 years while trying to help her ...
The Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum promotes the false view that Armenians committed genocide against Turks, rather than vice versa. [1]Armenian genocide denial is the negationist claim that the Ottoman Empire and its ruling party, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), did not commit genocide against its Armenian citizens during World War I—a crime documented in a large body of ...
An election year means more conversations about politics and policy. We’ll each marshal the facts most convincing to us, wait impatiently for the other person to finish talking, and then hit ...
Others also argue that the high death toll among Indigenous Australians following colonisation was mainly a result of the introduction of diseases, and that deliberate acts of violence and the effects of dispossession did not meet the legal definition of genocide.
Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is a strategy in which a lawyer advances several competing (and possibly mutually exclusive) arguments in order to pre-empt objections by his adversary, with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's. [1]