Malapropism: incorrect usage of a word by substituting a similar-sounding word with different meaning
"Trust"
"Plan"
Anaphora: A scheme in which the same word or phrase is repeated at the beginning of successive phrases, clauses, or sentences. Example: "I will fight for you. I will fight to save Social Security. I will fight to raise the minimum wage."
Antanaclasis – is the stylistic trope of repeating a single word, but with a different meaning each time. Antanaclasis is a common type of pun, and like other kinds of pun, it is often found in slogans
"Trust plan" "trust plan" "trust plan"
Syllogistic fallacies are formal fallacies that occur in syllogisms. They include:
Any syllogism type (other than polysyllogism and disjunctive):
fallacy of four terms
Occurring in categorical syllogisms:
related to affirmative or negative premises:
affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
fallacy of exclusive premises
negative conclusion from affirmative premises
existential fallacy
fallacy of the undistributed middle
illicit major
illicit minor
fallacy of necessity
Occurring in disjunctive syllogisms:
affirming a disjunct
Occurring in statistical syllogisms (dicto simpliciter fallacies):
accident
converse accident
An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma) is a rhetorical syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) used in oratorical practice. Originally theorized by Aristotle, there are four types of enthymeme, at least two of which are described in Aristotle's work.[1]
Aristotle referred to the enthymeme as "the body of proof", "the strongest of rhetorical proofs…a kind of syllogism" (Rhetoric I.I.3,11). He considered it to be one of two kinds of proof, the other of which was the paradeigma. Maxims, Aristotle thought to be a derivative of enthymemes. (Rhetoric II.XX.1)
A Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which the aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the jury rather than to factually refute the case of the other side. This term was used in an episode of the animated series South Park, "Chef Aid", which premiered on October 7, 1998. This episode satirized attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O. J. Simpson in his murder trial. The concept of disguising a flaw in one's argument by presenting large amounts of irrelevant information has previously been described as the modern-day equivalent of a red herring or the fallacy ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion).[1][2]
Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics[1] and post-reality politics[2]) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of facts by relegating facts and expert opinions to be of secondary importance relative to appeal to emotion. While this has been described as a contemporary problem, some observers have described it as a long-standing part of political life that was less notable before the advent of the Internet and related social changes
Paradeigma (Greek: παραδειγμα) is a Greek term that refers to a pattern, example or sample. In rhetoric, a paradeigma is used to compare the situation of the audience to a similar past event, like a parable. It offers counsel on how the audience should act.[1] In the Greek tradition many paradeigmas are mythological examples, often in reference to a popular legend or well-known character in a similar position to the audience.[2]
The term "paradigm", a distinct concept or pattern, is derived from the Greek term paradeigma.
Stfu crack heads
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum (Latin, alternatively Contra principia negantem disputari non potest and Contra principia negantem disputari nequit; literally, "Against one who denies the principles, there can be no debate") is a principle of logic and law: in order to debate reasonably about a disagreement, there must be agreement about the principles or facts by which to judge the arguments.
Arthur Schopenhauer refers to it in his "The Art of Controversy,"[5] and Lenin objected to Peter Berngardovich Struve's assertion of the principle, retorting, "That depends on how these principia are formulated—as general propositions and notes, or as a different understanding of the facts of Russian history and present-day reality."[6] Karl Popper thought the maxim expressed the relativist's irrationalist "doctrine of the impossibility of mutual understanding between different cultures, generations, or historical periods – even within science, even within physics": "The myth of the framework is clearly the same as the doctrine that one cannot rationally discuss anything that is fundamental, or that a rational discussion of principles is impossible
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:
The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.
There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
Ovid, Tristia, 1.2.97: si tamen acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt, / a culpa facinus scitis abesse mea. ("Yet if mortal actions never deceive the gods, / you know that crime was absent from my fault."
adversus solem ne loquitor do not speak against the Sun Or, "do not argue what is obviously/manifestly incorrect
a falsis principiis proficisci to set forth from false principles Legal phrase; Cicero, De Finibus, 4.53
alterius non sit qui suus esse potest let no man be another's who can be his own Final sentence from Aesop ascribed fable (see also Aesop's Fables) "The Frogs Who Desired a King" as appears in the collection commonly known as the "Anonymus Neveleti", in Fable 21B: De ranis a Iove querentibus regem). Motto of Paracelsus. Usually Attributed to Cicero
asinus asinum fricat the jackass rubs the jackass Used to describe 2 persons who are lavishing excessive praise on one another
These fag actors will be like a banal South Park of adult child emotional appeals brought to you by tax dollars and pro ciascalps
As well you should know
This stupid cia experiment
Those fucking murderpus crack dealer memes you call politicians
Leaves little room for apothogy
~serial smasher
And you can shove your stupid homo payops through s juicer