
A neutral or positive expression instead of one that carries negative associations.

A few examples:
Correctional Facility – Prison

Downsize/Laid Off – Fired
Pleasantly Plump – Fat
Passed Away – Died
Pre-Owned – Used
Euphemism's make something sound more appealing.


Dysphemisms are the opposite of Euphemisms.

These are used to produce a negative effect on a listener's or reader's attitude toward something to tone down the positive associations it may have.

Examples:
Cancer stick – Cigarette
Snail Mail – Postal mail
Pig – Policeman
Worm food – Dead person

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEJJUGJZxpU
Question for the class: Is this a good example of a euphemism, or dysphemism, or something else?
What about this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoErxolaEQs


Something that is brought up in conversation that distracts from the original point, especially if the new topic is introduced in order to distract the person.
*Fun Fact: Why is this called “Red Herring?”
Because dragging a Red Herring across a trail will cause a dog to leave the original trail and follow the path of the herring.
Example: “You forgot to lock the front door again!” Response: “You never listen to me.”
Example in Politics: What is called the “October
Surprise” is when something special happens or information is released just before the elections in November. The intent is to distract voters from more serious issues.


Definition: An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue.
Topics introduced into the discussion are relevant to the topic but smoke screens tend to pile on issues or to make them extremely complicated until the original topic is lost in verbal “smoke.”
*A smoke screen is designed to
, confuse or mislead

“ Can the mayor be trusted? You be the judge."
· This implies without stating that the mayor cannot be trusted.
“ I heard they found him inside the bank at 2 a.m."
· This implies that he was robbing or burglarizing the bank.
Maybe he was actually the janitor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ9J4M5xN3k

Argument from popularity (or appeal to popularity)
· Urging someone to accept a claim (or falling prey to someone ’ s doing it to us) simply on the grounds that all or most or some substantial number of people believe it.
· Substantial number of people not being authorities or experts.
· Two kinds of argument from popularity:
1. Tradition
2. Common practice

1. Argument from tradition (or appeal to tradition)
· Attempting to convince someone that a claim is true or that a practice is legitimate of the basis of tradition.
· Tradition being an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior.
2. Argument from common practice (or appeal to common practice)
· Justifying or defending an action or practice on the grounds that it is common.
· Common being of or related to a community at large.

Common practice – “ Everyone else is doing it ” , “ Everyone speeds, so I shouldn ’ t get a ticket.
”
Tradition“ It ’ s always been done this way ”

A form of fallacious reasoning in which I is assumed that some event must inevitably follow from some other but in which no argument is made for the inevitability.
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging
$40,000 a semester!"
“You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.”

Misplacing the burden of proof
 This occurs when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of the issue.
 Person 1 states a claim. Person 2 asks person one about the claim. Instead of answering the question, person 1 directs a question back to person 2.

Misplacing the burden of proof
General rules to find where the burden of proof should be placed:
1.
Initial plausibility. The less initial plausibility a claim has, the greater burden of proof we place on someone who asserts that claim.
 Suppose one person claims that every even number is the sum of two prime numbers, while another person denies it. This claim will likely strike most people as implausible, so the first person faces the greater burden of proof.
2. Affirmative/negative. The burden of proof falls to the supporter of the affirmative side.
 A person that believes in ghosts has the responsibility of burden of proof. The nonbeliever doesn’t.
3. Special circumstances.
 High stake investments.
 Court cases

Defined As: Accepting a claim because the individual wants or wishes for it to be true; or rejecting it because the individual wants or wishes that it weren’t true.
Typically, Moral Subjective claims or beliefs, which is the idea that what is right or wrong is merely a matter of opinion, that thinking something is right or wrong makes it right or wrong for that individual.
Often a belief by the individual, that if the individual will gain from their belief, then this “gain” is a sufficient reason to believe.

Wishful Thinking begins with an individuals belief in P, their belief in P can often be overestimated by their desire for it to be true. Often overlooking evidence that may suggest its falsity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRE4fNlNH1E
Ex: “I stand to gain natural healing power through crystals.” “Hence, I should believe in crystal healing.”
In all reality, the crystal is merely a pretty rock, whether or not it provides healing power is dependent on what the independent facts are, not what the individual believes or wishes to believe. Wishful thinking is never cogent in that it does not provide evidence for its conclusion.

Defined As: A generalization or assumption about all members of a group that is based on an image of those in the group. Such assumptions can/are developed by social norms that is often supported by a prejudice, which is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h68UJaHvG_c http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/bill-oreillyhawaii-asians_n_2410563.html

Stereotypes can also be categorized as Grouping
Ambiguity's (Fallacy of Division or Composition)In such instances, stereotypes can be positive or negative. Ex:
“All Asians are good at math.”
Does not assess the “Asians” individual mathematical competency.However, stereotyping is not always a conscious reaction. Humans are constantly judging situations and people that surround them to make a decision whether the individual that is near them is a potential threat.

Defined As: When individuals use false pretense to satisfy their own need. When we offer a “better” or more acceptable reason for our actions, instead of the actual reason. Is also described as creating excuses for why we participate in certain activities.
http://www.youtube.com/user/GarageValvoline?v=ABrJK8gNJ2U

Rational is comprised of an individuals ability to make or conclude to a sensible judgment. Ex: “ It’s chilly outside, I should bring a jacket tonight.”
Rationalizing involves a confusion in thinking, allowing the individual to become subdued by the real intention of their action. Ex: “I’m going to learn Spanish so I can impress this girl I met.”
-Eludes to the true motivation of why an individual does or says something.

Definition: A question that rests on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions.
Don’t use because they tend to be negative and come across as entrapment.
Example 1: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Tend to have an emotive and unspoken assumption.

Definition: Figures of speech in the form of questions that are asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.
Shouldn’t be used because they can simply persuade someone to believe in a position.
Example 1: “Can’t you do anything right?”
Example 2: "And how many deaths will it take till we know, that too many people have died?" Bob Dylan.

Definition: A pattern of fallacious reasoning. “It’s acceptable for A to do X to B because B would do
X to A”, said where A’s doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B’s doing X to A.
Not good to use because it attempts to change or distract from the issue.
Example 1: Since my parents cheat on taxes, I can cheat on mine too.

●
Definition: short for
, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.
reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

●
Definition of a Personal Attack Hominem:
●
The illogical notion that a person’s shortcomings refute his or her views.
●
Examples:
"What makes you so smart and all-knowing that you can deny
God's existence? You haven't even finished school."
"If Dr. Smith is such a skilled hear surgeon, then why was he arrested for gambling?"

Definition: The illogical idea that you rebut an opponents position by showing that he or she didn't always subscribe to it.
●
Examples: “We don’t have to take Al Gore’s arguments that cars are wrecking the environment seriously because he drives a gas-guzzler.”
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

●
●
Definition: The illogical notion that an individual's personal circumstances somehow refute his or her views.
Example: “ Well you can forget what Father
Hennesy says about the dangers of abortion, because he's a priest, and priests are required to hold such views.
●
*Because Father Hennesy is a priest and priests are required to preach against abortion, they have discounted what he has to say about the topic at all.