Assigned Reading for This Week

Herrick, Chapter 12 – Definition in Argument

Key Terms:

• Argumentative and circular definitions
• Definition Report
• Distinction without a difference
• Etymology
• Euphemism
• Labeling
• Original intent
• Paradigm case
• Reclassification

Herrick, Chapter 13 – Locating and Evaluating Sources of Evidence

Key Terms:

• Ambiguity
• Equivocation
• Mixed metaphor
• Redundancy
• Semantic and syntactic ambiguity

Definition in Argument

Imagine a city council debate over a proposed law to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. Advocates called this shift a “public health approach,” emphasizing treatment over punishment for addiction. They argued that this wasn’t about condoning drug use but addressing addiction as a health crisis. Meanwhile, opponents labeled it a “soft-on-crime policy,” warning that it would lead to increased drug-related deaths, homelessness, and crime. By framing the law in these dramatically different ways, each side influenced public perception and the meaning of “decriminalization” itself.

This scenario highlights how definitions play a pivotal role in shaping arguments and controlling public opinion. In this chapter, we’ll explore how definitions are strategically used in arguments—not simply to clarify, but to guide, persuade, and even manipulate. As we’ll see, defining a term isn’t just about providing a meaning; it’s about shaping reality.

Homeless encampment along city street in Portland, Oregon. In 2020, Oregon made headlines as the first U.S. state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs. After intense public debates, Oregon lawmakers voted to roll back drug decriminalization in 2024. Photo CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

1. Importance of Definition in Argument

Definition plays a crucial role in argumentation as it sets boundaries and shapes the debate. Whoever controls the definitions often controls the argument.

2. Types of Definitions

• Definition Report: Provides a generally accepted meaning for clarity. Example: “Deep web” as sites not indexed by search engines.
• Argumentative Definition: A strategic definition used to support a specific argument. Example: Labeling a border wall as a “security wall” versus a “land grab” impacts public perception.

3. Strategies of Definition

• Euphemism: Softening terms to reduce opposition. Example: Calling layoffs “downsizing” in corporate language.
• Reclassification: Shifting a term to a new category. Example: Buckyballs marketed as “adult desktop gift items” rather than “toys” to avoid liability issues.
• Labeling: Using suggestive names to influence perception. Example: “Fake news” to discredit media outlets without addressing specific arguments.

4. Evaluating Definitions

• Circular Definition: Defining something by repeating the same idea. Example: Defining “free trade” as “unrestricted imports and exports.” Or defining “crime” as “unlawful act.”
• Distinction Without a Difference: Claiming a new category exists without meaningful differences. Example: Defining a “registry of citizen support” instead of calling it a “petition.”

5. Sources of Definitions

• Common Usage: Everyday meanings, often used in political and legal contexts. Example: “Parent” as biological or adoptive guardian in family law.
• Etymology: Word origins to clarify meanings. Example: “Vocation” (from Latin vocare, “to call”) to suggest meaningful work beyond a job.
• Paradigm Case: Using typical examples to define a term. Example: Defining “good president” by referencing qualities of Harry Truman.
• Original Intent: Meaning based on original usage. Example: Debates on the Second Amendment and the term “militia” in the U.S. Constitution.
• Authority: Expert definitions from recognized sources. Example: DSM-5’s definitions in mental health discussions.

Ambiguity, Equivocation, and other Misleading Uses of Language in Argumentation

Consider this: during a heated presidential campaign speech, Candidate A declares their main opponent, Candidate B “an existential threat to democracy,” warning that their actions could dismantle the country’s foundational systems. Candidate B’s supporters respond by insisting that their candidate is “a true patriot fighting for the people.” This choice of language shapes two vastly different narratives: Is this person a risk to democracy itself, or a protector of core values? Both terms—“existential threat” and “true patriot”—are vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation, inviting audiences to project their fears, hopes, and political leanings onto these phrases.

This chapter delves into how ambiguity, equivocation, and other language tactics blur lines in arguments and public discourse. As we’ll uncover, words like these aren’t simply descriptors; they’re powerful tools that stir emotions, shift perceptions, and obscure meaning. Understanding these language strategies reveals how rhetoric can shape beliefs, mask intentions, and manipulate public understanding.

1. Ambiguity

Semantic Ambiguity: A word with multiple meanings in the same context.

• Example: “Washington lawmakers debate concealed carry ban” (It’s unclear whether “Washington” refers to the State of Washington, the city of Washington D.C., or as a metonym for the U.S. Congress).
• Example: “Real Cheese Flavor” (It’s unclear whether “real” refers to actual cheese content, or artificial ingredients that mimics the taste of “real” cheese).

Syntactic Ambiguity: Sentence structure creates multiple interpretations.

• Example: “Family Sued Over Dog Bite Wins $100,000 Settlement” (Was the family sued because their dog bit someone, or were they the victims of a dog bite and received a settlement?)
• Example: “Special Financing Available Without Credit Check” (This could suggest that all special financing options require no credit check, but it may mean only a specific option with high-interest terms is available without a credit check)

2. Equivocation

Changing the meaning of a term mid-argument, creating inconsistency.

• Example 1: “Senator Zoidberg is a true patriot who fights for freedom. Unlike other lawmakers, he always fought vigorously for the freedom to bear arms.” “Freedom” initially suggests broad individual liberties, but in context, it may shift to mean only certain selective freedoms that align with the politician’s agenda.
• Example 2: “This law provides protection for families. It protects their right to refuse government-mandated vaccinations.” “Protection” is first used to imply safety and security but shifts to mean protecting certain cultural or ideological beliefs.

3. Other Language Issues

Redundancy: Unnecessary repetition of ideas.

• Example: “The economy is doing great! Inflation has slowed, consumer prices are stabilizing, cost-of-living increases have tapered off, price growth has moderated.”

Choosing the Wrong Word (for the purpose to mislead): Misuse due to similar-sounding words.

• Example 1: Framing mass layoffs as “The company is optimizing its workforce” (to make the act of firing employees sound like an organizational improvement rather than a reduction).
• Example 2: Framing illegal wiretapping as “special enhanced monitoring procedures for national security.”
• Example 3: Framing illegal pyramid scheme as “Member-supported, peer-to-peer financial empowerment program, featuring network-enhanced income plan and exclusive opportunity with tiered rewards.”
• Example 4: Framing unpaid labor as “Exposure-based volunteer opportunities for portfolio enhancement and gaining valuable industry insight.”