What's a dissenting argument?
Dissenting opinion
A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment. When not necessarily referring to a legal decision, this can also be referred to as a minority report.
Dissenting opinion
The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the existing case law, the application of different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts. Many legal systems do not provide for a dissenting opinion and provide the decision without any information regarding the discussion between judges or its outcome.
Dialetheism
A response is that disagreement can be displayed by uttering "¬"P" and, furthermore, "P" is not a dialetheia". However, the most obvious codification of ""P" is not a dialetheia" is ¬("P" & ¬"P"). But what if "this itself" is a dialetheia as well? One dialetheist response is to offer a distinction between assertion and rejection. This distinction might be hashed out in terms of the traditional distinction between logical qualities, or as a distinction between two illocutionary speech acts: assertion and rejection. Another criticism is that dialetheism cannot describe logical consequences, once we believe in the relevance of logical consequences, because of its inability to describe hierarchies.
Precedent
When various members of a multi-judge court write separate opinions, the reasoning may differ; only the "ratio decidendi" of the majority becomes binding precedent. For example, if a 12-member court splits 5-2-3-2 in four different opinions on several different issues, whatever reasoning commands seven votes on each specific issue, and the seven-judge majorities may differ issue-to-issue. All may be cited as persuasive (though of course opinions that concur in the majority result are more persuasive than dissents).
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County
Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Blackmun and O’Connor, dissented. After noting the “litigation explosion” the Court’s reasoning will cause, the dissent points out that even if the Church’s allegation are not struck, plaintiff’s claim is so weak it will be summarily rejected regardless. They also point out that the severe floods in the floodplain may poise a greater obstacle to rebuilding Lutherglen than the county ordinance. Given that the Church has such a weak case, the dissenters doubt the propriety of using struck complaint allegations as a “springboard” to address novel constitutional questions.
Organizational dissent
Not all organizations are designed to recognize and respond to employee dissent. Furthermore, employees consider expressing upward dissent as a "risky proposition." In several studies Kassing (1997, 1998) found that employees decided to express dissent by considering whether or not they will be perceived as constructive or adversarial, as well as the risk of retaliation associated with dissenting. In 2002, Kassing found that once an individual decides to strategically express dissent, they use five different categories: direct-factual appeal, repetition, solution presentation, circumvention, and threatening resignation.
Self-discrepancy theory
Except for theories focusing on the actual self, previous theories of the self had not systematically considered the different domain of self in terms of the different standpoints on those domains. These two constructs provide the basis from which discrepancies arise; that is, when certain domains of the self are at odds with one another, individuals experience particular emotional affects (ex: one's beliefs concerning the attributes one would personally like ideally to possess versus your beliefs concerning the attributes that some significant other person, such as your mother, would like you ideally to possess).
Argument
There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best-known of which are "deductive" and "inductive." An argument has one or more premises but only one conclusion. Each premise and the conclusion are truth bearers or "truth-candidates", each capable of being either true or false (but not both). These truth values bear on the terminology used with arguments.
A "deductive argument" is one that, if valid, has a conclusion that is entailed by its premises. In other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises—if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises.
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.
The dissenting opinion focused on the Disablement Provision of the permanent injunction, which argued that the finding of contempt should have been reversed outright. "In my view, the disablement provision does not bar the installation of modified software that renders the devices non-infringing, and, even if the provision were unclear, an unclear injunction cannot be the basis for contempt." In addition, the dissenting opinion argued this case should not be remanded to the lower court due to the Infringement Provision since "that provision plainly was not violated."
Primary deviance
Differential Association theorizes that "If an individual associates with people who hold deviant ideas more than with people who embrace conventional ideas, the individual is likely to become deviant." The person that is presenting the deviant act isn't always necessarily the deviant. The emphasis of differential association is that if someone is presented with the opportunity they will likely commit the act.Although some one may associate with both deviants and those who hold conventional ideas, if the deviant contacts outweigh the conventional contacts then deviancy is likely to occur. Differential Association's main key point refers particularly to the association aspect. Differential Association is theorized to be "the cause of deviance.
Dissenting academies
The dissenting academies were schools, colleges and seminaries (often institutions with aspects of all three) run by English Dissenters, that is, those who did not conform to the Church of England. They formed a significant part of England’s educational systems from the mid-seventeenth to nineteenth centuries.
Paraconsistent logic
Another approach is to reject disjunctive syllogism. From the perspective of dialetheism, it makes perfect sense that disjunctive syllogism should fail. The idea behind this syllogism is that, if "¬ A", then "A" is excluded and "B" can be inferred from "A ∨ B". However, if "A" may hold as well as "¬A", then the argument for the inference is weakened.
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in "Plessy v. Ferguson" set down for the majority opinion later in "Brown v. Board of Education".
Judicial opinion
The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the case law, use of different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts. They are written at the same time as the majority opinion, and are often used to dispute the reasoning behind the majority opinion.
Practical arguments
The object of a discussion is often to resolve a difference of opinion.
This requires common grounds from which to logically convince your opponent that your claim is better supported and that their claim is supported by false grounds and or warrants. (see Occam's razor) If one has no grounds or warrants to support ones claim, then one has no argument just a belief/claim, probably an inaccurate one.
Dissenting opinion
A dissent in part is a dissenting opinion that disagrees selectively—specifically, with one part of the majority holding. In decisions that require holdings with multiple parts due to multiple legal claims or consolidated cases, judges may write an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part".
Self-persuasion
The amount of dissonance, and the corresponding mental distress relies on two basic factors: 1) the importance of the cognitions, where the greater the personal value of the elements is, the greater the resulting level of dissonance. For example, a matter involving cutting funding for schools in order to cut taxes will have wide-ranging amounts of dissonance between a parent and a nonparent.; 2) the ratio of the cognitions, where the relationship between dissonant and consonant elements vary in proportion. In the school example, a parent, a potential parent, and a person who has decided to never have children will view the scenario differently, since the weight of what is desirable (consonant) and what is undesirable (dissonant) differs between those affected by the decision.
Allegation
Disjunctive allegations are allegations in a pleading joined together by an "or". In a complaint, disjunctive allegations are usually "per se" defective because such a pleading does not put the party on notice of which allegations they must defend.
Dissent
In some political systems, dissent may be formally expressed by way of opposition politics, while politically repressive regimes may prohibit any form of dissent, leading to suppression of dissent and the encouragement of social or political activism. Individuals who do not conform or support the policies of certain states are known as "dissidents". Several thinkers have argued that a healthy society needs not only to protect, but also to encourage dissent.
Disappointment
Disappointment theory, pioneered in the mid-1980s by David E. Bell with further development by Graham Loomes and Robert Sugden, revolves around the notion that people contemplating risks are disappointed when the outcome of the risk is not evaluated as positively as the expected outcome. Disappointment theory has been utilized in examining such diverse decision-making processes as return migration, taxpayer compliance and customer willingness to pay. David Gill and Victoria Prowse have provided experimental evidence that people are disappointment averse when they compete.
Argument-deduction-proof distinctions
Argument-deduction-proof distinctions originated with logic itself. Naturally, the terminology evolved. 
An argument, more fully a premise-conclusion argument, is a two-part system composed of premises and conclusion. An argument is "valid" if and only if its conclusion is a consequence of its premises. Every premise set has infinitely many consequences each giving rise to a valid argument. Some consequences are obviously so but most are not: most are hidden consequences. Most valid arguments are not yet known to be valid. To determine validity in non-obvious cases deductive reasoning is required. There is no deductive reasoning in an argument "per se"; such must come from the outside.
Majority opinion
American dissenting and concurring opinions are sometimes partially drafted in the future tense, since they are speaking in terms of hypothetical situations that will not occur, as opposed to what the majority is doing in its opinion. However, even dissenting opinions may end in a present tense performative utterance, which is usually some variation on the phrase "I respectfully dissent."
Corresponding conditional
Thus, any argument is valid if and only if the denial of its corresponding conditional leads to a contradiction.
Disjunctive syllogism
There are two kinds of logical disjunction:The widely used English language concept of "or" is often ambiguous between these two meanings, but the difference is pivotal in evaluating disjunctive arguments.
Thomas L. Ambro
His notable dissenting opinions include:
Argument
In Logic types of fallacy are firmly described thus:
First the premises and the conclusion must be statements, capable of being true or false. Secondly it must be asserted that the conclusion follows from the premises. In English the words "therefore", "so", "because" and "hence" typically separate the premises from the conclusion of an argument, but this is not necessarily so. Thus: "Socrates is a man, all men are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal" is clearly an argument (a valid one at that), because it is clear it is asserted that "Socrates is mortal" follows from the preceding statements. However "I was thirsty and therefore I drank" is NOT an argument, despite its appearance. It is not being claimed that "I drank" is logically entailed by "I was thirsty". The "therefore" in this sentence indicates "for that reason" not "it follows that".Often an argument is invalid because there is a missing premise—the supply of which would render it valid. Speakers and writers will often leave out a strictly necessary premise in their reasonings if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: "All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand when heated." (Missing premise: iron is a metal). On the other hand, a seemingly valid argument may be found to lack a premise – a 'hidden assumption' – which if highlighted can show a fault in reasoning. Example: A witness reasoned: "Nobody came out the front door except the milkman; therefore the murderer must have left by the back door." (Hidden assumptions- the milkman was not the murderer, and the murderer has left by the front or back door).
List of dissenting academies (1660–1800)
This is a list of dissenting academies, English and Welsh educational institutions run by Dissenters to provide an education, and often a vocational training as a minister of religion, outside the Church of England. It runs from the English Restoration of 1660, which created a parallel educational system as a side-effect, to the end of the 18th century. See List of dissenting academies (19th century) for later history.
Effort justification
Critics of this theory claim it is dependent on complex social context (which is responsible for the creation of dissonance), but research has shown the same effects in children (who understand less about social context and therefore are less likely to be influenced by it) and even in pigeons. Alessandri, Darcheville & Zentall (2008) argue that the cause for these findings, both in humans and animals, is the contrast effect. According to this theory, the preference is a result of the difference between the reward and the situation that leads to it. When the preliminary situation is unpleasant or strenuous, the difference between it and the reward that follows is great. When the preliminary situation is not especially unpleasant or strenuous, the difference between it and the reward is smaller. The reward that has the larger difference from its preliminary situation will be preferred since it is experienced as more positive.
Dissoi logoi
"Dissoi Logoi", also called "dialexeis", is a two-fold argument, which considers each side of an argument in hopes of coming to a deeper truth. The dissoi logoi doctrine provides historical insight into early sophistic rhetoric. Silvermintz notes that while "dissoi logoi" purports to offer a consideration of both the absolutist and relativist positions, the latter chapters defending the sophists demonstrate its allegiance to the relativist position. It is similar to a form of debate with oneself and holds that contradiction is an inevitable consequence of discourse. Rhetorician John Poulakos sees dissoi logoi as the ability or practice of providing a contrary argument at any point on any issue. He says that people must be persuaded to one side or the other in order to act, and this is accomplished through dissoi logoi.
Communication accommodation theory
Divergence is a linguistic strategy whereby a member of a speech community accentuates the linguistic differences between himself and his interlocutor. "Given that communication features are often core dimensions of what it is to be a member of a group, divergence can be regarded as a very important tactic of displaying a valued distinctiveness from the other." This helps to sustain a positive image of one's in-group and hence to strengthen one's social identity. Divergence is commonly used to establish dominance or power in an interaction. For example, if a recent college graduate becomes a professor, they might be teaching students who are around the same age as them. Therefore, it is important for the professor to communicate in a way that the students are aware the professor has more authority than them. Another case where there is a need for divergence are when professionals are with clients. In a 2001 study, doctors and patients discussed musculoskeletal disorders and it was observed that there were miscommunications that occurred because the participants chose to converge during the communication rather than to accentuate their position differences. Patients in the study felt more comfortable discussing their problems because they felt "positive about their doctor’s capacity to understand them". Communicating in a fashion to make speech different can also be interpreted as a sign of dislike towards a person or group. For example, "when you run into a disliked classmate from high school, your vocal pattern becomes more different from that classmate's." This represents the act of divergence because you are purposely changing your speech to not sound like that person.
Self-discrepancy theory
The self-discrepancy theory states that people compare themselves to internalized standards called "self-guides". These different representations of the self can be contradictory and result in emotional discomfort. Self-discrepancy is the gap between two of these self-representations. The theory states that people are motivated to reduce the gap in order to remove disparity in self-guides.
Abstention doctrine
An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a United States court may (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case if hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court. Such doctrines are usually invoked where lawsuits involving the same issues are brought in two different court systems at the same time (such as federal and state courts).
Disjunct (linguistics)
In linguistics, a disjunct is a type of adverbial adjunct that expresses information that is not considered essential to the sentence it appears in, but which is considered to be the speaker's or writer's attitude towards, or descriptive statement of, the propositional content of the sentence, "expressing, for example, the speaker's degree of truthfulness or his manner of speaking."
Dissenter
A dissenter (from the Latin "dissentire", "to disagree") is one who disagrees in matters of opinion, belief, etc. In the social and religious history of England and Wales, and, by extension, Ireland, however, it refers particularly to a member of a religious body who has, for one reason or another, separated from the Established Church or any other kind of Protestant who refuses to recognise the supremacy of the Established Church in areas where the established Church is or was Anglican.
Discretionary jurisdiction
In the second case, the appellate court rules on novel issues in a case, and under "stare decisis", those rulings become new law in themselves. In those cases, the parties disagree vigorously if any existing legal rule even applies to the facts of the case, or the appellant may be deliberately trying to attack an established rule in the hope that the appellate court will overturn a prior decision and establish a new rule, or the question has been ruled upon by multiple intermediate appellate courts and is so perplexing that all the lower courts disagree with each other.
2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly
Two dissenting positions were attached to the Statement and Recommendations. Dissenting Position One urged retention of the existing ministry standards proscribing homosexual practice. Dissenting Position Two argued for a more unequivocal statement of full inclusion for LGBQT persons in the life of the ELCA.
Adverse possession
The statute of limitations applies only to the disseisor's time on the property, not how long the true owner may have been dispossessed of it (by, say, another disseisor who then left the property). However, if adverse possession is continuous between two or more successive disseisors without interruption, it may be possible for the second disseisor to claim adverse possession for the entire period based upon a legal doctrine known as "tacking".
Reason
Abductive reasoning, or argument to the best explanation, is a form of reasoning that doesn't fit in deductive or inductive, since it starts with incomplete set of observations and proceeds with likely possible explanations so the conclusion in an abductive argument does not follow with certainty from its premises and concerns something unobserved. What distinguishes abduction from the other forms of reasoning is an attempt to favour one conclusion above others, by subjective judgement or attempting to falsify alternative explanations or by demonstrating the likelihood of the favoured conclusion, given a set of more or less disputable assumptions. For example, when a patient displays certain symptoms, there might be various possible causes, but one of these is preferred above others as being more probable.
List of fallacies
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to. Argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. "See also irrelevant conclusion."
The following is a sample of books for further reading, selected for a combination of content, ease of access via the internet, and to provide an indication of published sources that interested readers may review. The titles of some books are self-explanatory. Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below.
Transcendental arguments
Typically, a transcendental argument starts from some accepted aspect of experience, and then deduces what must be true for that type of experience to be possible. Transcendental arguments are often used as arguments against skepticism, usually about the reality of the external world or other minds.
List of valid argument forms
Disjunctive syllogism (sometimes abbreviated DS) has one of the same characteristics as modus tollens in that it contains a premise, then in a second premise it denies a statement, leading to the conclusion. In Disjunctive Syllogism, the first premise establishes two options. The second takes one away, so the conclusion states that the remaining one must be true. It is shown below in logical form.
Argument
Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it. Forms of non-deductive logic include the statistical syllogism, which argues from generalizations true for the most part, and induction, a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. An inductive argument is said to be "cogent" if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is "strong"), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true. Cogency can be considered inductive logic's analogue to deductive logic's "soundness." Despite its name, mathematical induction is not a form of inductive reasoning. The lack of deductive validity is known as the problem of induction.
Self-discrepancy theory
The availability of a self-discrepancy depends on the extent to which the attributes of the two conflicted self-state representations diverge for the person in question. Each attribute in one of the self-state representations (actual/own) is compared to each attribute in the other self-state representation (ideal/own). Each pair of attributes is either a match or a mismatch. The larger variance between the number of matches and the number of nonmatches (i.e., the greater the divergence of attributes between the two self-state representations), the larger the magnitude of that type of self-discrepancy that is available. Furthermore, the greater the magnitude of a particular discrepancy produces more intense feelings of discomfort accompanying the discrepancy when activated.
Paraconsistent logic
A primary motivation for paraconsistent logic is the conviction that it ought to be possible to reason with inconsistent information in a controlled and discriminating way. The principle of explosion precludes this, and so must be abandoned. In non-paraconsistent logics, there is only one inconsistent theory: the trivial theory that has every sentence as a theorem. Paraconsistent logic makes it possible to distinguish between inconsistent theories and to reason with them.
Being Different
Malhotra calls for mutual respect as a higher standard for pluralism than tolerance. Mutual respect does not call for acceptance of beliefs held by others, only to have genuine respect for difference, because, beliefs are not facts. Malhotra explains why this gaze from the other side benefits the West, explaining that he
Malhotra identifies "six distinct and fundamental points of divergence between the dharmic traditions and the West." Malhotra argues that understanding these six points of divergence is crucial to recognizing the fallacy of facile sameness arguments and to understanding senselessness of inculturation efforts. These points of divergence are:
Grammar of Assent
The second part further clarified assent by comparing it with inference. The key difference between assent and inference is that assent is unconditional and inference is conditional, i.e., dependent on other propositions or ideas and unable to stand by itself.
Argument
Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments. Deductive arguments can be valid or sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premisses is false and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premisses necessitate a true conclusion. Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength: the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability. The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments, the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.
Dissenting academies
English Dissenters in this context were Nonconformist Protestants who could not in good conscience subscribe (i.e. conform) to the beliefs of the Church of England. As they were debarred from taking degrees in the only two English universities, many of them attended the dissenting academies. If they could afford it, they completed their education at the universities of Leyden, Utrecht, Glasgow or Edinburgh, the last, particularly, those who were studying medicine or law. Many students attending Utrecht were supported by the Presbyterian Fund.
Dissenting Gothic
In Dissenting Gothic, the interests of good design could over-ride historical purity; the role of the architect was seen as originating a design solution, rather than promoting specific Gothic forms as a "cause célèbre" in pursuit of an idealised high church and mediaeval belief system.
Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l
The dissenting opinion in which all six dissenters joined would have found copyright infringement. In their view the Supreme Court precedents applied only to judicial opinions. The dissent regarded the majority's policy claims as mere "feel-good" and "symbolic" rhetoric, not supportable, precedent-based substantive law. The public benefits, they claimed, by delegating the code-drafting process to such organizations as SBCCI, for they can provide the service at a lower cost and in a more
efficient and expert manner; however, these organizations need copyright protection to subsidize their public-service activity.
Différance
The other main component of is deferring, which takes into account the fact that meaning is not only synchrony with all the other terms inside a structure, but also diachrony, with everything that "was" and "will be" said, in History, difference as structure and deferring as genesis:
This confirms the subject as not present to itself and constituted on becoming space, in temporizing and also, as Saussure said, that "language [which consists only of differences] is not a function of the speaking subject":
Questioned this myth of the presence of meaning in itself ("objective") and/or for itself ("subjective") Derrida will start a long deconstruction of all texts where conceptual oppositions are put to work in the actual construction of meaning and values based on the subordination of the movement of "":
But, as Derrida also points out, these relations with other terms express not only meaning but also values. The way elemental oppositions are put to work in all texts it is not only a theoretical operation but also a practical option.
The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards revealing it operating in literary texts, juridical texts, etc., would be to overturn these oppositions:
It is not that the final task of deconstruction is to surpass all oppositions, because they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. But this does not obviate their need to be analyzed and criticized in all its manifestations, showing the way these oppositions, logical and axiological, are at work in all discourse for it to be able to produce meaning and values.
Matal v. Tam
Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government is not only banning certain content or topics, but certain ideas. The test for viewpoint discrimination is “[o]ther things being equal, viewpoint discrimination occurs when government allows one message while prohibiting the messages of those who can reasonably be expected to respond.” Additionally, viewpoint discrimination involves intent to discourage one viewpoint and advance another. The general concern being that the government will try to eradicate, not just content from the marketplace, but certain viewpoints—whether positive or negative. If something rises to the level of viewpoint-based discrimination, it is deemed to be unconstitutional.
Scientific dissent
Scientific dissent is distinct from denialism, which is a deliberate rejection of scientific consensus usually for commercial or ideological reasons.
Disjunctivism
Disjunctivism is a position in the philosophy of perception that rejects the existence of sense data in certain cases. The disjunction is between appearance and the reality behind the appearance "making itself perceptually manifest to someone."
United States v. Moreland
Justice Brandeis wrote the dissenting opinion, which disagreed with the majority on key issues.
Gerald Bracey
Dissent
Logical disjunction
The disjunctive identity is false, which is to say that the "or" of an expression with false has the same value as the original expression. In keeping with the concept of vacuous truth, when disjunction is defined as an operator or function of arbitrary arity, the empty disjunction (OR-ing over an empty set of operands) is generally defined as false.
Self-discrepancy theory
Beliefs that are incongruent are cognitive constructs and can vary in both their availability and accessibility. In order to establish which types of discrepancies an individual holds and which are likely to be active and produce their associated emotions at any point, the availability and accessibility of self-discrepancies must be distinguished.
Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction
Candrakirti rejected "the use of autonomous arguments, for the very reason that they imply the acceptance (however provisional) of entities. According to Chandrakirti, this mode of thinking is a subtle form of grasping at inherent existence: one's mind is still searching for some way to hold on to an essence, self, or identity for conventionally perceived objects. For Candrakirti, there is no use in explaining the relative truth in any philosophical system; "the relative truth consists simply of phenomena as we observe them, the unanalyzed constituents of the common consensus." The only aim of consequential arguments "is to introduce the mind to the direct knowledge of emptiness, not an intellectual understanding of it," making "no concessions to the spiritually unprepared."
Abstention
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might not be politically expedient to vote according to his or her conscience. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Argument
World-disclosing arguments are a group of philosophical arguments that are said to employ a disclosive approach, to reveal features of a wider ontological or cultural-linguistic understanding – a "world," in a specifically ontological sense – in order to clarify or transform the background of meaning and "logical space" on which an argument implicitly depends.
English Dissenters
A dissenter (from the Latin "dissentire", "to disagree") is one who disagrees in opinion, belief and other matters. English Dissenters opposed state interference in religious matters, founded their own churches, educational establishments, and communities. Some emigrated to the New World, especially to the Thirteen Colonies and Canada. Brownists founded the Plymouth colony. English dissenters played a pivotal role in spiritual development of the United States and greatly diversified the religious landscape. They originally agitated for a wide-reaching Protestant Reformation of the established Church of England, and triumphed briefly during the Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell.
Distraction display
An additional hypothesis in alignment with Armstrong's ideas about conflicting impulses suggests that the incorporation of sexual and threat displays into the distraction display may represent displacement. Displacement occurs when an animal, unable to satisfy two conflicting impulses, may initiate an out-of-context behavior to "vent". If a displacement behavior served an adaptive function, such as increased survival of the young, then it may have experienced positive selection and become ritualized and stereotyped in its new context.
Complement (linguistics)
In linguistics, an adjunct is an optional, or structurally-dispensable, part of a sentence, clause, or phrase that, when it is removed, will not affect the remainder of the sentence except to discard from it some auxiliary information. A more detailed definition of the adjunct emphasizes its attribute as a modifying form, word, or phrase that depends on another form, word, or phrase, being an element of clause structure with adverbial function. An adjunct is not an argument or a predicative expression, and an argument is not an adjunct. The argument-adjunct distinction is central in most theories of syntax and semantics. The terminology used to denote arguments and adjuncts can vary depending on the theory at hand. Some dependency grammars, for instance, employ the term circonstant (instead of adjunct) and follow Tesnière (1959).
Alternating series
diverges, while the alternating version
Protestant dissenting deputies
Their main aim was protecting the civil rights of dissenters (i.e. fighting against disabilities, etc.). As such, they naturally found support in the Whig party. They had a selected committee of twenty-one who met regularly at the King's Head tavern in London. The group, though technically representative of the London congregations, was, de facto, the representatives for dissenting bodies across the nation. They presented addresses to the crown on behalf of all dissenters. They tended to support private influence over more public forms of protest.
Self-discrepancy theory
Self-discrepancy theory initiates the importance of considering two different standpoints (or vantage points) in which "the self" is perceived. A standpoint on the self is defined as "a point of view from which you can be judged that reflects a set of attitudes or values."
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Any other Justice, whether they be in the majority or in the minority, is entitled to write a separate opinion in a case to clarify his/her views, or even to challenge the points raised in the majority opinion. In the 1973 case of "Javellana v. Executive Secretary", concerning the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, each Justice chose to write a separate opinion, while more recently, the 2005 decision on the Expanded VAT Law ("Abakada v. Executive Secretary") saw 11 separate opinions. The separate opinions of a Justice in the majority is usually known as a "concurring opinion", while one penned by a Justice in the minority is known as a "dissenting opinion". A Justice who only partially agrees with the majority opinion while disagreeing with portions thereof may even write a "concurring and dissenting opinion".
Andersen v. King County
The four justices that dissented accused the majority of relying upon "circular reasoning" in formulating their opinion. In the principal dissenting opinion, signed by Justices Tom Chambers, Susan Owens, and Bobbe J. Bridge, Justice Mary Fairhurst asked: "Would giving same-sex couples the same right that opposite-sex couples enjoy injure the state's interest in procreation and healthy child rearing?" Justice Tom Chambers issued a separate dissenting opinion signed by Justice Susan Owens, while Justice Bobbe J. Bridge issued another dissenting opinion.
Disagree and commit
Disagree and commit is a management principle which states that individuals are allowed to disagree while a decision is being made, but that once a decision has been made, everybody must commit to it. The principle can also be understood as a statement about "when" it is useful to have conflict and disagreement, with the principle saying disagreement is useful in early states of decision-making while harmful after a decision has been made. Disagree and commit is a method of avoiding the consensus trap, in which the lack of consensus leads to inaction.
Argument (linguistics)
A further division blurs the line between arguments and adjuncts. Many arguments behave like adjuncts with respect to another diagnostic, the omission diagnostic. Adjuncts can always be omitted from the phrase, clause, or sentence in which they appear without rendering the resulting expression unacceptable. Some arguments (obligatory ones), in contrast, cannot be omitted. There are many other arguments, however, that are identified as arguments by the relative clause diagnostic but that can nevertheless be omitted, e.g.
List of fallacies
Questionable cause - Is a general type error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation. Either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect. A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Chief Justice Roberts authored a dissenting opinion. First, the dissent condemns the majority's "special solicitude" conferred to Massachusetts as having no basis in Supreme Court cases dealing with standing. The dissent compares the majority opinion to "the previous high-water mark of diluted standing requirements," "United States v. SCRAP" (1973). Roberts then argues that the alleged injury ("i.e.", Massachusetts' loss of land because of rising sea levels) is too speculative and without adequate scientific support. The dissent also finds that even if there is a possibility that the state may lose some land because of global warming, the effect of obliging the EPA to enforce automobile emissions is hypothetical at best. According to Roberts, there is not a traceable causal connection between the EPA's refusal to enforce emission standards and petitioners' injuries. Finally, the dissent maintains that redressability of the injuries is even more problematic given that countries such as India and China are responsible for the majority of the greenhouse-gas emissions. The Chief Justice concludes by accusing the majority of lending the Court as a convenient forum for policy debate and of transgressing the limited role afforded to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Constitution.
Sermons of Jonathan Swift
Religious dissension is the topic of this sermon and argues that dissenters do not want to embrace freedom, but instead exist only to destroy established Churches, especially the Church of Ireland. In the sermon, Swift conflates all dissenters with the Whig political party, and they are "those very persons, who under a pretence of a public spirit and tenderness towards their Christian brethrene, are so jealous for such a liberty of conscience as this, are of all others the least tender to those who differ from them in the smallest point relating to government." To Swift, tolerating dissent is the same as tolerating blasphemy.
Regress argument
The regress argument (also known as the diallelus (Latin) or diallelon, from Greek "di allelon" "through or by means of one another") is a problem in epistemology and, in general, a problem in any situation where a statement has to be justified.
Argument (linguistics)
The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is crucial to most theories of syntax and grammar. Arguments behave differently from adjuncts in numerous ways. Theories of binding, coordination, discontinuities, ellipsis, etc. must acknowledge and build on the distinction. When one examines these areas of syntax, what one finds is that arguments consistently behave differently from adjuncts and that without the distinction, our ability to investigate and understand these phenomena would be seriously hindered.
There is a distinction between arguments and adjuncts which isn't really noticed by many in everyday language. The difference is between obligatory phrases versus phrases which embellish a sentence. For instance, if someone says "Tim punched the stuffed animal", the phrase stuffed animal would be an argument because it is the main part of the sentence. If someone says, "Tim punched the stuffed animal with glee", the phrase with glee would be an adjunct because it just enhances the sentence and the sentence can stand alone without it.
Adjunct (grammar)
The existence of optional arguments blurs the line between arguments and adjuncts considerably. Further diagnostics (beyond the omission diagnostic and the others mentioned above) must be employed to distinguish between adjuncts and optional arguments. One such diagnostic is the relative clause test. The test constituent is moved from the matrix clause to a subordinate relative clause containing "which occurred/happened". If the result is unacceptable, the test constituent is probably NOT an adjunct:
R v Sinclair
In his dissenting decision, Binnie J. endorsed an intermediate position where a detainee makes a request to reconsult counsel when it is reasonable in the circumstances. Although Binnie J. did not define what is reasonable, he provided a non-exhaustive list of factors.
R v JA
The dissenting judge found that consent for the purpose of sexual assault required an active mind during the sexual activity in question.
Consensus theory
Consensus theory serves as a sociological argument for the furtherance and preservation of the status quo. It is antagonistic to conflict theory, which serves as a sociological argument for modifying the status quo or for its total reversal. In consensus theory, the rules are seen as integrative, and whoever doesn't respect them is a deviant person. Under conflict theory, the rules are seen as coercive, and who transgresses them is considered an agent of change.
R v Harrison
A dissenting decision was written by Deschamps J. Following her decision in "Grant", Deschamps J. proposed a different test for section 24(2) of the "Charter". Deschamps J.'s proposed test would balance the impact on the accused (which includes the seriousness of the officer's conduct) with the reliability of the evidence. Under this test, Deschamps J. concluded that the evidence should have been admitted.
Schlude v. Commissioner
The dissent believes that the majority decision is in direct contrast to the most elementary principle of accrual accounting—that advances be considered reportable income only in the year in which they are earned by the taxpayer’s rendition of the services for which the payments were made. The dissent argues that this decision “completes the mutilation of a basic element of the accrual method of reporting income”—a method which has been explicitly approved by Congress for almost half a century.
Discrediting tactic
Logically, an argument is held in discredit if the underlying premise is found, "So severely in error that there is cause to remove the argument from the proceedings because of its prejudicial context and application...". Mistrial proceedings in civil and criminal courts do not always require that an argument brought by defense or prosecution be discredited, however appellate courts must consider the context and may discredit testimony as perjurious or prejudicial, even if the statement is technically true.
Irrelevant conclusion
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. "Ignoratio elenchi" is sometimes confused with straw man argument.
Self-discrepancy theory
This discrepancy exists when a person's own standpoint does not match what they believe a significant other considers to be his or her duty or obligation to attain. Agitation-related emotions are associated with this discrepancy and results in the presence of negative outcomes. More specifically, because violation of prescribed duties and obligations is associated with punishment, this particular discrepancy represents the presence of negative outcomes. The individual experiencing this discrepancy will have an expectation of punishment; therefore, the person is predicted to be vulnerable to fear and feeling threatened, because these emotions occur when danger or harm is anticipated or impending. Analyses of such emotions have described them as being associated with the standpoint of one or more other people and discrepancy from norms or moral standards. The motivational nature of this discrepancy suggests that one might experience feelings of resentment. The feeling of resentment arises from the anticipated pain to be inflicted by others. The person might also experience anxiety because of apprehension over negative responses from others. This discrepancy is associated with agitation from fear and threat. In addition, it is also associated with agitation from self-criticism. Social anxiety is uniquely associated with this discrepancy.
Infinity
In logic an infinite regress argument is "a distinctively philosophical kind of argument purporting to show that a thesis is defective because it generates an infinite series when either (form A) no such series exists or (form B) were it to exist, the thesis would lack the role (e.g., of justification) that it is supposed to play."
Abbate v. United States
The dissenters argued for reversal, relying on two arguments. First, they observed that most civilized countries recognized that a conviction elsewhere barred a conviction in their own jurisdiction. Second, they argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause was intended to represent a national policy against allowing the federal government to prosecute someone who had already been prosecuted in another court for an offense stemming from his actions.
Expectancy violations theory
Two other theories share similar outlooks to EVT – Discrepancy-Arousal Theory and Patterson's social facilitation model (SFM). Like EVT, DAT explains that a receiver becomes aroused when a communicative behavior does not match the receiver's expectations. In DAT, these differences are called discrepancies instead of expectancy violations. Cognitive dissonance and EVT both try to explain why and how people react to unexpected information and adjust themselves during communication process.
Allegation
On the other hand, defendants often plead in the alternative by listing seemingly inconsistent defenses. For example, "I did not do the crime", "if I did, I didn't know", or "even if I did know, I've got a good excuse". Such a pleading may be considered disjunctive and may be permissible.
Argument from inconsistent revelations
The argument from inconsistent revelations, also known as the avoiding the wrong hell problem, is an argument against the existence of God. It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations. The argument states that since a person not privy to revelation must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponent, and there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's judgment.
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum
The maxim cannot be found in Aristotle, though scholars have pointed to some Aristotelian passages that approach it in spirit. It is sometimes said to have been used in Medieval scholastic philosophy to refer to the authority of the Aristotelian system. Duns Scotus concludes one passage of his commentary on Peter Lombard's "Sentences" with the statement, "If this argument is not convincing, many principles supposed by the philosophers are called into doubt; and against one who denies commonly accepted principles, discussion is impossible ("contra autem negantem principia communiter recepta, non est disputandum").
Inductive reasoning
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either "strong" or "weak", which describes how "probable" it is that the conclusion is true. Another crucial difference is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems, such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.
Argument from inconsistent revelations
The argument appears, among other places, in Voltaire's "Candide" and "Philosophical Dictionary". It is also manifested in Denis Diderot's statement that, whatever proofs are offered for the existence of God in Christianity or any other religion, "an Imam can reason the same way".
Dissent aversion
Dissent aversion is the judicial phenomenon that implies that judges do not like dissenting opinions in the jurisdictions where they are possible nor do they like to dissent themselves. A common example is as follows: On a panel of three judges, only one feels strongly about the decision. One of the two remaining may side with the first judge, leaving the third judge with the option of dissenting on an issue they do not feel strongly about or siding with the majority.
Apodicticity
Apodictic propositions contrast with assertoric propositions, which merely assert that something is (or is not) the case, and with problematic propositions, which assert only the possibility of something being true. Apodictic judgments are clearly provable or logically certain. For instance, "Two plus two equals four" is apodictic. "Chicago is larger than Omaha" is assertoric. "A corporation could be wealthier than a country" is problematic. In Aristotelian logic, "apodictic" is opposed to "dialectic," as scientific proof is opposed to philosophical reasoning. Kant contrasted "apodictic" with "problematic" and "assertoric" in the "Critique of Pure Reason", on page A70/B95.
R v JA
The dissenting judgment was given by Fish J.
Self-discrepancy theory
The theory proposes how a variety of self-discrepancies represents a variety of types of negative psychological situations that are associated with different kinds of discomfort (p. 319). 
A primary goal of the self-discrepancy theory is to help aid in predicting which types of incongruent ideas will cause such individuals to feel different kinds of negative emotions (p. 319).
Argumentum a contrario
In logic, an (Latin: 'argument from the contrary'), also known as appeal from the contrary, denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not disproven by a certain case. It is the opposite of the analogy. When analogy is allowed, "a contrario" is forbidden and vice versa. Arguments "a contrario" are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws. Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments "a contrario" are not by definition fallacies.
Discrepancy theory
In mathematics, discrepancy theory describes the deviation of a situation from the state one would like it to be in. It is also called the "theory of irregularities of distribution". This refers to the theme of "classical" discrepancy theory, namely distributing points in some space such that they are evenly distributed with respect to some (mostly geometrically defined) subsets. The discrepancy (irregularity) measures how far a given distribution deviates from an ideal one.
Reverse doctrine of equivalents
The voting pattern of the "en banc" court in "SRI" was 5-1-5. The lead opinion insisted on a remand for trial on the reverse doctrine of equivalents issue, but found literal infringement. One judge found triable issues on reverse doctrine of equivalents, literal infringement, and prosecution history estoppel. The other five judges dissented, stating that (1) there was no literal infringement when the claims were properly construed in the light of the specification and the arguments made during the prosecution history, and (2) the undisputed fact record indicates that the accused device operates in a fundamentally different way from the patented device and therefore cannot infringe under the reverse doctrine of equivalents.
Adjunct (grammar)
The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is much less clear than the simple omission diagnostic (and the other diagnostics) suggests. Most accounts of the argument vs. adjunct distinction acknowledge a further division. One distinguishes between obligatory and optional arguments. Optional arguments pattern like adjuncts when just the omission diagnostic is employed, e.g.