Strengthening or proving an argument with facts involves providing empirical evidence, data, or specific examples that support the claims being made. This approach enhances the argument's credibility and persuasiveness by demonstrating that it is grounded in reality rather than mere opinion. Facts serve as a foundation that can validate the reasoning and help convince the audience of the argument's validity. Ultimately, incorporating factual evidence makes the argument more robust and compelling.
same type of argument with different view
A decision or argument based on sound reasoned argument which can be proved - logical.
A direct argument is a form of reasoning where the conclusion is derived straightforwardly from the premises without any intermediate steps or additional assumptions. It typically follows a clear logical structure, making it easy to understand how the conclusion is reached. This type of argument is often used in formal logic and mathematics to establish truths based on established facts or rules. Essentially, it presents a clear line of reasoning that directly supports the conclusion.
to oppose using evidence or an argument
turn around facts are facts that where you start from the hundreds to the ones.
To dispute an argument on the basis of fact means to challenge the validity of the argument by presenting evidence or data that contradicts the claims being made. This approach focuses on objective information rather than relying solely on opinions or personal beliefs. By using facts as a basis for disputing an argument, one aims to strengthen their position and demonstrate the flaws in the opposing point of view.
This is the argument of a case rather than the hard facts of a case
Evidence of support refers to proof or information that helps to validate or back up a claim or argument. It can include facts, data, expert opinions, examples, or other types of evidence that strengthen the credibility and persuasiveness of a statement or position.
Generally when people argue, they argue by comparing the facts that they have. The person whose facts are more compelling wins the argument. An ignorant person does not know any facts. A person who argues with no facts argues with emotion or opinion based on nothing that can be checked or verified by the other side. It is not possible to argue against nothing (no facts.) So while a person who has no facts to bolster his argument can continue arguing, it is a fruitless argument; hence, you can't argue with ignorance. The ignorant person may walk away from an argument believing himself or herself to have won -- not because he or she had the better argument based on facts that could be checked by the other side - but because he or she used opinion or feelings to bolster his or her "argument."
If an argument has logical fallacies, it means that there are errors in reasoning that weaken the argument's validity. Logical fallacies can include flaws in how premises relate to the conclusion, irrelevant information, or faulty assumptions. Identifying and addressing these fallacies can strengthen the overall logic of the argument.
Disputing an argument on the basis of the facts involves challenging the validity or truth of the claims made by presenting evidence or data that contradicts those claims. This process relies on objective information rather than personal opinions or beliefs, aiming to clarify misunderstandings or highlight inaccuracies. By focusing on factual discrepancies, one can strengthen their position and promote a more informed discussion. Ultimately, it seeks to uphold a standard of truth and rational discourse.
''prove that someone or something is false.''
Anticipating objections means considering potential counterarguments or challenges that others may raise to your argument. By addressing these objections in advance, you can strengthen your argument by acknowledging and countering any potential weaknesses or alternative viewpoints. It demonstrates a thoughtful and thorough approach to persuasion.
It is not possible to prove God doesn't exist, just as we can't prove fairies, elves and unicorns don't exist. The inability to prove something doesn't exist does not therefore mean that it does exist. It is not possible to prove that there is no teapot in orbit around Pluto, yet the lack of such a proof doesn't mean that the teapot therefore exists. There have been several attempts to prove that God exists using logic (eg Kalam cosmological argument, Transcendental Argument for God [TAG]), but these are not universally accepted as valid and true - if they were then there'd be no need for any further discussion.
A counter argument is an argument made against another argument.
Supporting details in a passage are specific pieces of information that help to explain, clarify, or provide evidence for the main idea. They may include facts, examples, statistics, or quotes that strengthen the author's argument or point of view. These details offer further insight and help to make the main idea more convincing to the reader.
No. You mean "a case in point" A case in point is an example that helps to prove your argument eg "The weather is unpredictable, last week's hurricanes were a case in point."