PAD 520 week 2 discussion 2

[Response for discussion 2]




[Date due]

There is an advantage that from the recommendation if United States could intervene in Balkans it could affects the Muslim population. There were also various biases which made the interventions really difficult. In addition, due to the recognition of facet was highly affecting politics internationally which was in turn going to erode the US intervention. The termination which was taken by CNN was highly achievable whereby their work was tide. Without the intervention, the US military would gain its stability and peace. From the failure of United States to intervene in Balkans strengthens their strategic direction in the war. United States too were very happy about the name of the few and they too enjoyed it (Scheuer et al. 2010).

The disadvantage of the United States not to intervene in the Balkans neglected the origin of the war. This in turn did not in cooperate the calculation strategy of mapping procures of the argument. In addition, it subjected humanitarian into sufferings since it rejected the origin of the war causing surrender to some of the employed ways. They preferred conflict termination which was very hard than conflict resolution. This in turn neglected the external forces and also the influences to the conflicts. United States military saw the intervention bringing some internal crises among the militaries. There are also other models of argument like legal argumentation and scientific argumentation. Legal arguments are those spoken by law to appeal. Scientific argumentation is the approach whereby we use facts from scientific grounds. From the scientific argumentation, there is an informal fallacy of argument from repetition (Driver et al. 2009).

In conclusion, in legal argumentation we also find informal fallacies of argument of silence whereby the conclusion can be drawn without evidence. On the other hand, we find conjunction fallacy on legal argumentation because the judge may decide to choose what appeal many people than a single person while on scientific argumentation, there is anecdotal fallacies whereby we use other philosophers feelings like Aristotle (Driver et al. 2009).


Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2009). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43-102.