What is Argument and Rhetoric?
“What is an Argument?” You may initially feel you have a good idea of what the concept of Argument means, given most of us by the time we are adults have engaged in at least several engagements that we felt were forms of argument.
If we look at a standard dictionary, we will most likely see a long list of various meanings attached to the word argument, given it plays such a fundamental and central role within the existing system.
For example, in general use, an argument is variously defined as “a fact or statement used to support a proposition or reason” as well as “a verbal dispute or quarrel”. Argument is also defined as a “process of reasoning”, particularly in the use of tools of reason in law such as Logic. Argument is also associated with mathematics, programming, grammar and astronomy.
The word argument itself, comes from the Latin term arguo, meaning “I show, prove, assert, declare, make clear; or I reprove, accuse, charge with; or I blame, censure; or I denounce as false”. In other words, the ancient Latin concept of argument remains very similar to its use today. Rhetoric is the oratory skill of such argument. That’s it.
Whilst we may take the notion of argument for granted, it is possible to step back for a moment and identify some key component parts to all forms of argument, by inference of its meaning and function.
Argument is in essence the Process of establishing and validating the proof of one or more claimed facts. The notion of argument is by definition the same as that for reality through the combination of both the ideas of truth and fact to assert a thing or notion or claim is factually true; therefore, it may be trusted as genuine, without doubt.
All formal Arguments have three essential components: Matter, Issue and Facts. The foundational reasoning used to establish Argument is LOGIC either by Deductive or Inductive Logic. An Argument always involves a minimum of 2 persons. A Legal Argument always involves a minimum of 3 persons.
What is the Matter of an Argument?
Matter is merely the superficial Topic, or Context, or Classification, or Name in relation to the Argument and NOT its Substance.
Before any issue is described or alleged facts are asserted, an Argument has material existence by mere mention, providing its context in relation to topic, classification and name can be clearly identified.
Thus, the first test of Argument is that it can be defined in context and relation, before the Thing or Notion or Claim that if proven (by the facts) has/had material existence (reality). When an argument in law then is alleged, the three Unities (time, place and action) are essential to prove a Matter exists.
What is the Issue of the Argument?
The Issue is the Presumed or Alleged Thing or Notion or Claim that if proven has/had material existence (reality).
The Issue is more than the facts, or the premise or even the conclusion; it is the thing or notion or claim, that if proven is then said to have material existence as the “Res” or subject of the Matter.
While a Matter exists, merely on proving general existence, an Issue needs to be proven by Deductive Argument or Inductive Argument.
Deductive: The TRUTH of the Conclusion is a logical consequence of the Premises Inductive: The Premises are proven FACT therefore the Conclusion is most probably TRUE. Who are the Parties to an Agreement?
Who are the parties to an argument?
In a personal argument, the minimum parties are two being the Accuser and the one Accused. A Personal Argument can become a Legal Argument and many documents sent by various companies are designed to establish that procedure. However, until sufficient evidence exists to move forward to a legal argument, the minimum number of parties to a personal Argument is two.
As for a Legal Argument, the minimum number of parties is three, being the Accused, the Accuser and the Witness. The reason there needs to be three separate persons in a Legal Argument is that for any conclusion of an Argument such as an order or arrest or other action to be lawful, it must be from a valid Tribunal of Law, or in other words a body of three separate persons capable of being able to determine the truth of the matter.
The most perfect law tribunal itself is the notion of the Court of Conscience and the Tribunal of Penance where the penitent is the Accuser (self-accuser), the one Accused and the Witness before Heaven for their transgressions. This is also called a non-Contentious Legal Argument whereas, when an accused fights the accusation, this is called a Contentious Argument.
The other point to make clear at this revelation is the fact that a Tribunal of Penance only occurs under the proper dispensation of the sacrament of Penance in accord with ecclesiastical law, primarily Canon Law and the church of England. The sacrament and procedure require three essential elements (1) the accused must be genuinely in remorse, or sorrowful for such an accusation; (2) the accused must be willing to confess their part in possibly causing the controversy to arise; (3) the accused promises to satisfy any debts incurred by their sins.
At no point does the sacrament of Penance require a penitent to admit to false accusations or confess to transgressions that are not of their making – merely that a man or woman, competent in themselves; and knowledgeable of the essentials, is then willing to stand and defend the Golden Rule of Law and make sure they are not party to injuring it.
Be careful in assuming that any of this has anything to do with avoiding the consequences of your actions – the complete opposite. Redemption and Remedy only arises from self-responsibility and learning and taking account of your actions.
If no basic agreement, an Argument stalls
If parties cannot agree on classification of Matter and Issue, then the Argument stalls. For example, if the parties cannot agree on the Matter and essential Issue at hand, then such an Argument cannot proceed unless some other mitigating circumstance exists.
Thus, for example if Party A claims a copyright injury and Party B claims a trespass and breach of contract (terms of use) issue against Party A, then there is no agreement as to whether the Matter is a matter of copyright or trespass or breach of contract.
However, most people unwittingly agree to Matter and Issue before ever going to Court. A Summons is also a type of Letter of Demand. If unchallenged, then on appearance, is acceptance of existence of debt.
Logic
What is Logic?
Logic is about using the principles of Inference and Reason whereby Propositions that are properly expressed may be used to deduce consistent Conclusions across a wide variety of Subjects.
By one measure, Logic may be defined as Bivalent or Multivalent. Bivalent Logic is based on the presumption of only one of two possible outcomes or conclusions; and Multivalent Logic is based on the presumption of two or more relative possible outcomes or conclusions.
By another measure, Logic may be defined as Linear or Multilinear. Linear Logic is chronologically based on the presumption of a set of singular space-time dependent events commencing with A and then proceeding to B; Multilinear Logic is based on a progressively expanding set of interdependent space-time events.
Bivalent Logic
Bivalent Linear Logic is based on three (3) Laws of Reason being Identity, Non- Contradiction and Bivalency being:
- The Law of Identity states than an object is the same as its identity
- The Law of Non-Contradiction or the “exclusion of paradox” states that a valid proposition cannot state something that is and that is not in the same respect and at the same time.
- The Law of Bivalency (Excluded Middle) states that conclusions will resolve themselves to one (1) of two (2) states being valid or invalid.
Only Multivalent Multilinear Logic is capable to approximating to any degree of accuracy the reality of the Universe. Both Multivalent Linear Logic and Bivalent Linear Logic are wholly artificial and unable to accurately portray the reason, function and effect of any real scientific events with any degree of accuracy.
Whiste Bivalent Linear Logic is the most unnatural and artificial system for portraying, recreating or analyzing the reason, cause and effect of any real world events, it is the most functional of all three
(3) logic models in terms of models of law and reason because of its simplicity. However, as Bivalent Linear Logic is wholly absurd and unnatural to the multivalent paradoxical reality of life, all men and women must be granted the right of free will and consent to be adjudicated according to Bivalent Linear Logic.
In contrast, a Falsity of Fallacy in Logic or Argument is an incorrect reasoning resulting in a misconception or erroneous Premise(s) or Conclusion or both that are Incoherent, Fallacious, Irrelevant, Malicious, Perfidious, Unproven, Unasserted, Circular, Verbose, Absurd, Repetitive or Defamatory.
Logical Fallacy: Incoherence
An Incoherent or Incohaerens argument, being Latin for “it is not consistent”, is any argument whereby its Premises do not follow one another. Thus, an incohaerens is when no Conclusion could reasonably be deduced or inferred from two or more inconsistent and possibly contradictory premises.
Also called the “Kitchen Sink” fallacy, Incoherence is one of the simplest ways of defeating almost 100% of “cut and paste” internet remedies. This is why you cannot ever create “grand documents” based on everything including “the kitchen sink”.
Logical Fallacy: Non-Sequitur
A Non sequitur argument, being Latin for “it does not follow” is any argument whereby its Conclusion does not follow from its Premises. Thus, a non sequitur is when a Conclusion could be either true or false, yet the argument is false as there is no reasonable way of arriving to such a Conclusion from the premises alone by way of deduction or inference.
Non sequitur fallacies are frequently the “bread and butter” of propaganda, main stream media and bullies. Being charged before the allegation is proven is in one sense a Non Sequitur.
Logical Fallacy: Irrelevance
An Irrelevance or Ignoratio elenchi, being Latin for “irrelevant conclusion” is any argument whereby its Conclusion may in itself be valid, but does not address the primary deduction or inference (as issue in question) related to the Premises.
Logical Fallacy: Malice
Malice or Malignare, being Latin for “a malicious act” is any deliberately and willfully negative, spiteful, wicked and evil act designed and intended to harm another, whether or not the other party was aware of such behaviour.
Logical Fallacy: Perfidy
Perfidy or Perfidum, being Latin for “a deliberately false, dishonest, treacherous act; a breach of trust” is any deliberately and willfully false, dishonest, deceptive, treacherous act, representing a clear and unmistakable breach of trust, whether or not such action was intended for profit; and whether or not the other party was aware of such behaviour.
Logical Fallacy: Unproven Claim
An Unproven Claim or Onus Probandi, from Latin maxim Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat meaning “the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim)” is any argument whereby the burden of proof fails to be provided or is falsely placed upon the one accused or defending the claim and not the one making the claim. Thus, any system of law based on the assumption of being culpable on mere accusation without burden of proof is not only absurd, but false, immoral and unlawful.
Logical Fallacy: Unasserted Claim
An Unasserted Claim or Argumentum ex silentio, from Latin meaning “argument (deduced) out of silence” is any argument whereby a Conclusion is made on the absence of evidence or argument, rather than the existence or merit of argument.
Logical Fallacy: Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning or Circulus in demonstrando, from Latin meaning “circular argument” is any argument where the Conclusion ultimately relies upon the Premises to be true, yet the Premises ultimately depends upon the Conclusion to be true and thus self-referencing and circular.
Logical Fallacy: Verbose Reasoning
A Verbose reasoning or Argumentum Verbosum, from Latin meaning “verbal intimidation” is any argument where the Premises or Conclusion are deliberately verbose, or obtuse, or confusing, or overly technical, or complex, or occult, in order to intimidate and deflect attention from the existence of one or more fallacies contained within the argument in general.
Logical Fallacy: Absurd Reasoning
An Absurd reasoning or Argumentum as Absurdum, from Latin meaning “an absurd argument” is any argument where the Conclusion of an argument is set aside and one or more of the Premises of an argument are proven to be false by showing that a false, untenable or absurd result would follow its acceptance. Argumentum as Absurdum is frequently and mistakenly associated with an absurd logical fallacy known as Reductio ad absurdum or “reduction to absurdity” whereby an entire argument is falsely deemed absurd upon discovery of but one absurd or untenable premise.
Logical Fallacy: Repetitious Reasoning
Repetitious reasoning or Argumentum ad Infinitum, from Latin meaning “endless argument” is any argument where the argument is continually presented, often with intentional intimidation to use such repetition and ignorance of any counter argument in order to deflect attention from the existence of one or more fallacies contained within the original argument in general.
Logical Fallacy: Scandalous Reasoning
Inflammatory or Scandalous Reasoning may be based on sound evidence. However, within a court setting and many elements of the existing commercial system, the mere mention of such scandalous knowledge is grounds to have a matter struck out or more serious action taken.
Therefore, Scandal cannot ever be considered a valid defense nor a “bargaining chip”, as such behaviour is much more likely to result in punitive and personal punishment by members of the organization threatened. Scandal must be exposed on its own merits, not as a personal weapon in legal matters.
Logical Fallacy: Defamatory Reasoning
Defamatory Reasoning accusations or Argumentum ad Hominem, from Latin meaning “against the man” or “to the person” is any argument whereby attention is sought to be deflected from on one or more fallacies contained within the original argument by introducing a secondary argument against the character of the one highlighting such fallacies.
