Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Of the many and varied argument forms that can possibly be constructed, only very few are valid argument forms. In order to evaluate these forms, statements are put into logical form . Logical form replaces any sentences or ideas with letters to remove any bias from content and allow one to evaluate the argument without any bias due to its ...
Exceptionally, the case was heard by a bench of six judges. Willes J gave the decision of the court.. Curiously, much of the case was dedicated not to the double actionability rule for which it would later be cited, but to argument upon whether (i) a law that was retrospective in nature was repugnant to natural justice and (ii) whether the law was defective as a matter of procedure as the ...
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate.
"Ignore all rules" does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies. For example, you cannot violate Wikipedia:No legal threats without being blocked. "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a carte blanche. Rule-breakers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.
Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. As a consequence, the argument becomes a matter of faith and fails to persuade those who don't already accept it.
Justifiable homicide applies to the blameless killing of a person, such as in self-defense. [1]The term "legal intervention" is a classification incorporated into the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, and does not denote the lawfulness or legality of the circumstances surrounding a death caused by law enforcement. [2]
Tu quoque [a] is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.
In the most general terms, a reason is a consideration in an argument which justifies or explains an action, a belief, an attitude, or a fact. [1] Normative reasons are what people appeal to when making arguments about what people should do or believe. For example, that a doctor's patient is grimacing is a reason to believe the patient is in pain.