🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
argument_from_definition
The argument from definition asserts that something must have certain properties because of how the relevant term is defined. If X is defined as having property P, and the subject is classified as X, then it must have property P. This scheme is powerful in formal and legal contexts where definitions carry institutional authority. It becomes problematic when definitions are contested, when they are stipulated to win an argument, or when the real-world phenomenon does not neatly fit the definitional boundaries.
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples are not a man and a woman. Therefore, same-sex couples cannot be married. This argument treats a particular definition as fixed and authoritative rather than as a social convention that can be revised.
A true sport requires significant physical exertion. Chess involves no physical exertion. Therefore, by definition, chess is not a true sport. This argument depends entirely on accepting that particular definition of sport, which is itself contestable.
Journalism is defined as reporting facts impartially without personal opinion. This outlet regularly publishes editorials and opinion columns. Therefore, it is not, strictly speaking, journalism. This relies on a narrow definition that many in the field would dispute.
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Is a definition of a key term being used as a premise?
Type: binaryIs the definition standard and widely accepted, or stipulated for this argument?
Type: binaryDoes the conclusion follow only because of the particular definition chosen?
Type: binaryWould a different reasonable definition undermine the argument?
Type: binaryThe argument from definition asserts that something must have certain properties because of how the relevant term is defined. If X is defined as having property P, and the subject is classified as X, then it must have property P. This scheme is powerful in formal and legal contexts where definitions carry institutional authority. It becomes problematic when definitions are contested, when they are stipulated to win an argument, or when the real-world phenomenon does not neatly fit the definitional boundaries.
Definitions feel objective and neutral, as if they merely describe reality. But definitions are human constructions that can be drawn to include or exclude cases, and invoking a definition makes a normative argument appear to be a merely descriptive one.
Challenge whether the definition is authoritative or merely conventional. Ask who defined the term and whether the definition should be updated. Distinguish between descriptive definitions (how a word is actually used) and prescriptive definitions (how someone thinks it should be used).
Definitional arguments are central to legal interpretation (what counts as 'cruel and unusual punishment'?), medical classification (what qualifies as a 'disability'?), and political debates (what constitutes 'terrorism'?).
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.