LEGAL TECHNIQUECircular Argument

Intro: Puppet/Story Telling:

Script:Once a upon a time, in the kingdom of Sweden and Denmark, there was a king named King Ragnar who fell in love with one if his vassals daughter, Dora. As a gift, the king gave the maiden a lindworm, which however, grew fond of the maiden. The lindworm guarded the maidens chamber and threatens anyone who will enter it.

The vassal became worried of the situation and promised the hand of her daughter to whoever will slay the serpent. As soon as king Ragnar heard the news, he took the challenge and successfully killed the monster. Dora and Ragnar got married and had a son, Seigfrid. Seigfrid was born with unusual eye. He was born with a snake circling his eyelid. He was later called Prince Snake-in-the-Eye.

(Show symbol of ouroboros eye)

This is the symbol of ouroboros (uroboros). Plato described the ouroboros as the first living thing a self-eating, circular beingthe universe as an immortal, mythologically constructed entity.

The living being had no need of eyes because there was nothing outside of him to be seen; nor of ears because there was nothing to be heard; and there was no surrounding atmosphere to be breathed; nor would there have been any use of organs by the help of which he might receive his food or get rid of what he had already digested, since there was nothing which went from him or came into him: for there was nothing beside him. Of design he created thus; his own waste providing his own food, and all that he did or suffered taking place in and by himself. For the Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be far more excellent than one which lacked anything; and, as he had no need to take anything or defend himself against any one, the Creator did not think it necessary to bestow upon him hands: nor had he any need of feet, nor of the whole apparatus of walking; but the movement suited to his spherical form which was designed by him, being of all the seven that which is most appropriate to mind and intelligence; and he was made to move in the same manner and on the same spot, within his own limits revolving in a circle. All the other six motions were taken away from him, and he was made not to partake of their deviations. And as this circular movement required no feet, the universe was created without legs and without feet

Report Proper:

Like an ouroboros (uroboros), the circular argument turns the infinite chain upon itself. This method brings back premises to be wrongly dependent upon the original arguments conclusion.Circular argument. This fallacy occurs when one assumes the truth of what one seeks to prove in the very effort to prove it. In other words, an argument is fallacious when the conclusion lies buried in the premises used to reach that conclusion. This is also known as begging the question. Question-begging arguments often mask themselves in clever rhetoric. They can be easy to miss because they often sound good.

Puppets:Example: Three bank robbers are dividing up the proceeds from a recent heist. The biggest, burliest, robber is sorting hundred-dollar bills in three piles between them. One for you, and one for you, and two for meOne for you, and one for you, and two for me Another robber protests, How come you get two and we only get one? Because Im the leader. Well, how come youre the leader? Because Ive got twice as much money as either of you. Explanation: Here, the conclusion (I get the most money) is supported by the major premise (the leader gets the most money) and the minor premise (Im the leader). But it turns out that the minor premise (Im the leader) depends on the truth of the conclusion (I get the most money). So if the robber hadnt assumed from the outset that he was going to get the most money, the whole argument would collapse. The argument is circular because it assumes the very thing that it seeks to prove.

Example: Plato wrote: We must accept the traditions of the men of old time who affirm themselves to be the offspring of the gods that is what they say, and they must surely have known their own ancestors. How can we doubt the word of the children of the gods?Explanation: Platos conclusion is that some ancient humans were the children of the gods. His premises in support of that conclusion are that (1) they said so themselves, and (2) one cannot doubt the word of the children of the gods. But note that these premises only lead to the conclusion if we also assume that the people who said they were the children of the gods were the children of the gods, and this is exactly what Plato is trying to prove. His argument sounds good, but it doesnt establish anything as a matter of logic.

Example: The Supreme Courts power of judicial review is inherently undemocratic. When unelected judges reign supreme in the exposition of the Constitution, it cannot be said that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.Explanation: Again, the speaker is assuming the truth of what she is trying to prove in the very effort to prove it. If you look at these two sentences closely, you will see that they are essentially paraphrases of one another. Because the second sentence is longer and more complex, it tends to trick us into thinking that it is a logically distinct idea but it is not.