Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars)

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, hear the other side. It is most often used to refer to the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against him.

As a logical error, it refers to the fact that people will argue from assumptions which they don't bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It's not a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's often viewed with suspicion.

The premises of an argument are often introduced with words such as "Assume...", "Since..." and "Because...." It's a good idea to get your opponent to agree with the premises of your argument before proceeding any further.

The word "obviously" should not be used, though. It occasionally gets used to persuade people to accept false statements, rather than admit that they don't understand why something is 'obvious'. So don't be afraid to question statements which people tell you are 'obvious' -- when you've heard the explanation you can always say something like "You're right, now that I think about it that way, it is obvious."

---------------------

Principle that states that all premises of an argument should be stated explicitly, arguing from assumptions not stated This is not always a strict fallacy per se, but illustrates a principle that is often broken during discussion and should be avoided when possible.

X: "I believe in God".
A: "There is no evidence of God's existence".

"A is guilty of "jumping to conclusions" in regards to what he considers evidence, for the criteria for evidence is an assumption and was not explained"

---------------------

Well... it is a generally accepted fact that there is no evidence of God's existence, that you cannot prove God exists nor that God doesn't exist. Accusing "A" of "jumping to conclusions" is like accusing X of "jumping to conclusions" because he doesn't state properly what he means with "God" or "believe".

No...

This is more like some people discussing about an issue, and then someone gets into the discussion, and after a while one of the people in the discussion tells the newcomer that he should be quiet, because he doesn't know what they are talking about, referring to another discussion, that was not in any way or manner mentioned in this discussion earlier.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Pity

Argumentum ad misericordiam - Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy The Galileo Argument

How you feel about someone or something effects your opinion about the someone or something. Nevertheless, it's totally irrelevant to the argument at hands.

"Power of Weak" is an effort to create sympathy to one of the arguers, thus causing the majority to side with the "weak one".

"Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?"

A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life... Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.

Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

"My client is an integral part of this community. If he is sent to prison not only will this city suffer but also he will be most missed by his family. You surely cannot find it in your hearts to reach any other verdict than "not guilty"."

"I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket."

"You guys are young men...are you unemployed? How can you spend so much time refuting an old lady with a bad hip. You both know that from having checked me out last year. I am who I say I am.

I have an excuse to be here. My life has shut down due to age and a disability."

"My life has never, ever been as busy as it is now, and I actually neglect things I need to get done for work and myself to spend as much time on --- as I do. I cannot afford to continue doing this."

This fallacy is also called "the pity card"

One variation of this is "the Galileo Argument"

"Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo; they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my ideas a fair hearing either. But time will be the judge. I can wait; I am patient; sooner or later science will be forced to admit that all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of TIME."

This includes the idea that the opponent is "suffering for their beliefs". You know "laugh now, but I'll show you!"

"I must be doing something right, or I wouldn't be attracting all this attention from the Big Green Machine."
-- response from a person arguing that there is no global warming, when she is met with opposition

The Galileo Fallacy is often accompanied by the Gadfly Corollary. It goes something like this

"Great thinkers throughout history have make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. I make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. Therefore, I must be a great thinker."

Whenever someone says, "I'm really getting under people's skin -- I must be doing something right," or, "If people are this pissed off at what I say, then I must be doing my job" -- that's the Gadfly Corollary in action.

-- Greta Christina
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/the-galileo-fal.html

Variant of this is when the opposer refuses to answer the questions about their claims because "you're mean, you've hurt my feelings" or because the question is "personal".

Logical Fallacy: Demanding a simple answer to a complex question

This is more a debate trick than logical fallacy.

Q: "Do you think taxes are too high - yes or no?"

When you encounter such a question, you should refuse to try an offer a simplistic answer because you are only likely to run into trouble. Instead, you should insist that the discussion start out more simply.

A: "That depends upon which taxes we are talking about."

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

"To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.
The term "begging the question", as it is usually phrased, originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates to "assuming the initial point"."

"The original phrase used by Aristotle from which begging the question descends is: τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς (or sometimes ἐν ἀρχῇ) αἰτεῖν, "asking for the initial thing.""

- Wikipedia

"I remember what begs the question means by thinking that the argument raises a specific question--it begs *the* question--What's your support for that premise? OR  more informally, What does that have to do with anything? You use the phrase begs the question when people are hoping you won't notice that their reasons for coming to a conclusion aren't valid. They've made an argument based on a lame assumption. The question is What's your support for that premise?"

Quick and Dirty Tips: Begging the Question

Begging the question - assuming the base or principle the consequence is built on is true.

"The USonian war against Iraq is legal because the USonian government wouldn't do anything illegal." 

(Wouldn't they?)

"The charges of physical abuse are absolutely untrue because the police would never do something like that." 

(Wouldn't they?)

"Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed." 

(Do they?)

"The abortion is immoral because the unborn have a right to life." 

(Does it?)

"Affirmative Action can never be fair or just. You cannot remedy one injustice by committing another." 

(But is it an injustice?)

"Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity."
(Can it?)
- Begging the Question at Logically Fallacious

"This whole abortion debate about when human life begins is ridiculous. We should be thinking about the rights of the baby."(Do "babies" have rights? When is a baby a baby?)


John: "Why didn't you include Lorena's poetry in the student publication?" 
Anne: "Because it was judged as not sufficiently worthy of publication."
Fallacy Definitions: Begging the Question

Logical Fallacy: Circular reasoning

The best known circular argument is "The Bible is God's Word/inerrant/The Truth, because The Bible says so".

"Free trade will be good for this country. The reason is patently clear. Isn't it obvious that unrestricted commercial relations will bestow on all sections of this nation the benefits which result when there is an unimpeded flow of goods between countries?"

"Paranormal phenomena exist because I have had experiences that can only be described as paranormal."

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

"I like vanilla ice cream because it's my favorite kind."

"Ralph Nader was the best candidate for president, because he was totally better than any of the others."

"The Cubans wanted Kennedy dead, Oswald was in Cuba, therefore the Cubans hired Oswald."

Tautology is repeating things - "A is --- because A is ---"

"Sheena is a troll so everything she says is trolling"

"You have to follow the law, because it's the law."

Begging the question is related to this

Logical Fallacy: "What sounds good must be true"

Argument By Prestigious Jargon

Also "argument by gibberish" :-D

using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert.

"Fortifying the dextrose coherence leads to applicable inherence of explicable tolerance, therefore, we should not accept this proposal."

Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use"?

"Bad Subjects, both the publication and the electronic mailing list, are certainly not alone in decrying the over-use of jargon and problems associated with 'difficult' 'overly intellectual' or 'obscure' language. In these venues, when jargonistic language isn't exposed as a cover-up for stupidity, or vacuousness, it has been labelled elitist and self-defeating."

-- Bad subjects

Prestigious jargon is not in itself a logical fallacy. Some people really can't express themselves with simple and clear language and some people are so used to use certain words they use them everywhere. 

It is only a fallacy if the speaker chooses words she thinks the opponent doesn't understand, to confuse the opposition, or if difficult words are used to dazzle the opponent or/and the audience, and make the speaker look intelligent and as if she knows what she is talking about.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Because I can say it's stupid, it must be stupid or shortly, it's stupid because I say so.

Ridiculing, belittleing, mocking the argument or the opponent.

"1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"

"If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla!"

"Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up!"

"Children shouldn't be given regular hearing tests, because hearing tests are stupid!"

"I imagine that someone like yourself would have no idea about how difficult this actually is."

"Supporting that cause would take several surgical trusses!"

"Those other cars look ridiculous. This is the only man's car here."

"Those clothes would make you look like a overdressed donkey."