ID Number: 04-1-00174

Legal Argumentation and Debate

7/20/2011

Appeal to Emotion When emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted, a logically fallacy of Argumentum ad Misericordiam is committed. Mark Antony, in his speech, argues that Julius Caesar was dishonorably murdered by Brutus and his co-conspirators. He does this by forming an emotional relationship with the audience, creating a deep level of trust. He invites them to see things as he does by using their own imagination and examining the evidence for themselves. He opens his speech calling the audience as "Friends". He appeals to the crowd to lend him their ears. In opening his speech with this simple word Antony offers a path of least resistance to the crowd. He wants full attention of men with emotional response, which he can then exploit. Far from disagreeing with Brutus, he reiterates what Brutus has said. Every time Antony says Brutus is an honorable man is an opportunity for the audience to reappraise this honor. The repetition adds a sense of irony. This indirectly offers reasons to distrust Brutus by refraining from criticizing Brutus. Antony is using a speech of a theatric character. It uses the powerful language of emotion. Marc Antony provides an oration to address the instinctual nature in man. By appealing to crowd on a level they can appreciate. Antonys statement that his heart is in the coffin with Caesar becomes more than an expression of his own grief but a metaphor. Antony clearly committed the fallacy of Argumentum ad Misericordiam.

Conclusion Does Not Necessarily Follow the Premises Antony said that Caesar was his friend, faithful and just to him; that Ceasar brought many captives and wealth to Rome; that when the poor have cried, Ceasar had wept; that when Ceasar

ID Number: 04-1-00174

Legal Argumentation and Debate

7/20/2011

was presented with an award, he even refused several times. Antony would like the audience to conclude that Caesar was not ambitious and it was not right of Brutus to kill Caesar. However, while the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. There is a disconnection between the premises and the conclusion. This is a fallacy of Argumentum Non sequitur. To have a valid argument in a Legal Syllogism, Antony should have used a major premise (a broad statement of general applicability or Rule), instead of just using minor premises (narrower statements of particular applicability or Facts). In this way, the conclusion can follow logically from the premises, provided that it is consistent with both the major and minor premises. Antonys Speech as a Legal Argument in a Court of Justice A legal argument in a court of justice must be logical and expressed in clear and unambiguous manner. The court only admits arguments based on facts that are relevant and competent. Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court defines evidence as the means sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. The very tenor of the definition clearly indicates that not every circumstance which affords an inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence. It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the Rules even if it proves the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue.1 Clearly, metaphorical and ironic statements of Antony will not hold water before a court of justice.

Riano, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2009 ed., p.1.