Page 194 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 194
What Do We Know about the World?
EU provides a guarantee for long term stability, and living in a community
which is stable is the biggest benefit of all.
Her speech is, strictly speaking, an example of circular reasoning;
traditionally know as petitio principii (i.e., the claim to be supported is
presupposed). It this case stability in Croatia is supported with stabili-
ty of the EU (which is a slightly different claim, and could be support-
ed independently).
Another characteristic of Europhile argumentation is the frequent
use of arguments based on popular opinion (ad populum). Although
classical logical analyses regularly consider an argumentum ad populum
to be fallacious, Freeman (2005) writes that such arguments are often as-
sumed to be reasonable, or to have at least some standing, especially in
democratic political system and political argumentation. Herbst (1993)
conducted research on how opinion polling shapes politics and states
that many arguments in both the political and the private sphere are
based on premises that express what public opinion is supposed to be.
Walton (2006) concludes it is important that arguments are evaluated
in each particular case. If so, then the arguments based on popular opin-
ion in the speeches of the Europhiles are in most cases fallacious. For in-
stance, the former Prime Minister J. Kosor’s statement: “It is important
to learn how to function inside EU and live by the rules which are good
for 500 million Europeans,” implies: “if it is good for 500 million peo-
ple, it will be good for us” which may be considered to be fallacious. It
is plausible that, because of Croatian historical, political, economical or
geographical characteristics, perception or acceptance of some political
rules is going to be debatable.
The claim that Croatia achieved a good agreement with the EU
during the negotiation process has also been supported by the number
of people who worked on that project. J. Kosor’s argument that “More
than 3000 people in Croatia worked on the EU project for more than 6
years, closed 35 chapters, met a requirement for more than 400 criteria”
is again fallacious, in the sense that the number of people and amount
of time is not a guarantee of quality (though it may defeasibly indicate
such quality).
3.2.2. Preferred Types of Argument in the Speeches of Europhobes
Europhobes, which were mostly represented by activists and repre-
sentatives of civil organizations, participated in political talk shows and
organized protests, arguing that Croatia should say NO on the referen-
dum for EU ascension. The main characteristic of their speeches was the
EU provides a guarantee for long term stability, and living in a community
which is stable is the biggest benefit of all.
Her speech is, strictly speaking, an example of circular reasoning;
traditionally know as petitio principii (i.e., the claim to be supported is
presupposed). It this case stability in Croatia is supported with stabili-
ty of the EU (which is a slightly different claim, and could be support-
ed independently).
Another characteristic of Europhile argumentation is the frequent
use of arguments based on popular opinion (ad populum). Although
classical logical analyses regularly consider an argumentum ad populum
to be fallacious, Freeman (2005) writes that such arguments are often as-
sumed to be reasonable, or to have at least some standing, especially in
democratic political system and political argumentation. Herbst (1993)
conducted research on how opinion polling shapes politics and states
that many arguments in both the political and the private sphere are
based on premises that express what public opinion is supposed to be.
Walton (2006) concludes it is important that arguments are evaluated
in each particular case. If so, then the arguments based on popular opin-
ion in the speeches of the Europhiles are in most cases fallacious. For in-
stance, the former Prime Minister J. Kosor’s statement: “It is important
to learn how to function inside EU and live by the rules which are good
for 500 million Europeans,” implies: “if it is good for 500 million peo-
ple, it will be good for us” which may be considered to be fallacious. It
is plausible that, because of Croatian historical, political, economical or
geographical characteristics, perception or acceptance of some political
rules is going to be debatable.
The claim that Croatia achieved a good agreement with the EU
during the negotiation process has also been supported by the number
of people who worked on that project. J. Kosor’s argument that “More
than 3000 people in Croatia worked on the EU project for more than 6
years, closed 35 chapters, met a requirement for more than 400 criteria”
is again fallacious, in the sense that the number of people and amount
of time is not a guarantee of quality (though it may defeasibly indicate
such quality).
3.2.2. Preferred Types of Argument in the Speeches of Europhobes
Europhobes, which were mostly represented by activists and repre-
sentatives of civil organizations, participated in political talk shows and
organized protests, arguing that Croatia should say NO on the referen-
dum for EU ascension. The main characteristic of their speeches was the
