Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Unlike the straw man, which involves a distortion of the other party's position, [4] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic. [5] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional or unintentional; it is not necessarily a conscious intent to mislead. [1]
Red herring Presenting data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument. [citation needed] In 1807, William Cobbett wrote how he used red herrings to lay a false trail, while training hunting dogs—an apocryphal story that was probably the origin of the idiom ...
Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong. [73] Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. [74]
The most famous – and arguably the best – Super Bowl ad in history, the Apple “1984” ad, was nearly killed by the company for whom it was made.
This fallacy is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to change or distract from the issue. For example: Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should not do that. Speaker B: But you are ignoring the fact that President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony!
A funny ad goes a long way, or at least it did for two amateur advertisers who won Doritos' "Crash the Super Bowl" contest in 2009, an ad contest where the winning commercial was played during the ...
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument: . Person 1 asserts proposition X.; Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
The Associated Press obituary for Cochran mentioned the Chewbacca defense parody as one of the ways in which the attorney had entered pop culture. [8] Criminologist Thomas O'Connor says that when DNA evidence shows "inclusion", that is, does not exonerate a client by exclusion from the DNA sample provided, "About the only thing you can do is attack the lab for its (lack of) quality assurance ...