Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate *

I love this webpage. Some place else here I mentioned it is not important for me to agree but for me to try and understand. This page is a great step forward in that. (^;

* "This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones.

Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset. Instead, debaters have to bring together various facts, insights, and values that others share or can be persuaded to accept, and then show that those ideas lead more or less plausibly to a conclusion. Logic is a useful tool in this process, but it is not the only tool -- after all, "plausibility" is a fairly subjective matter that does not follow strict logical rules. Ultimately, the judge in a debate round has to decide which side's position is more plausible in light of the arguments given -- and the judge is required to pick one of those sides, even if logic alone dictates that "we do not know" is the answer to the question at hand.

Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. If you think a fallacious argument can slide by and persuade the judge to vote for you, you're going to make it, right? The trick is not getting caught."

The list of fallacies:

â—¦argumentum ad antiquitatem
â—¦argumentum ad hominem
â—¦argumentum ad ignorantiam
â—¦argumentum ad logicam
â—¦argumentum ad misericordiam
â—¦argumentum ad nauseam
â—¦argumentum ad numerum
â—¦argumentum ad populum
â—¦argumentum ad verecundiam
â—¦circulus in demonstrando
â—¦complex question
â—¦dicto simpliciter
â—¦naturalistic fallacy
â—¦nature, appeal to
â—¦non sequitur
â—¦petitio principii
â—¦post hoc ergo propter hoc
â—¦red herring
â—¦slippery slope
â—¦straw man
â—¦tu quoque


Partay On . . .

---

...

Many political beliefs are based on nothing more than propaganda. There are just as many decent Republicans as there are Democrats. It was the Republicans who were responsible for the abolition of slavery and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. People from both parties are responsible for the paternalistic attitude and have enacted federal and state programs designed to take care of people who can't take care of themselves--people who are ignorant, stupid, or just plain lazy. In the process of being "do-gooders," both Republicans and Democrats have removed much of the drive and determination from innumerable people, who have found it easier to accept government charity than continue on a path of hard work and self-reliance. Once people learn that irresponsible behavior, such as having babies that they cannot care for, results in larger paychecks from the government. Those lifestyle choices have negative implications for the entire nation for generations to come. Any attempt to withdraw government charity is seen as a heartless attack upon the most vulnerable members of our society. Most of the national media has aligned themselves with those vulnerable members of society and have failed to recognize the long-term harm caused by those with good intentions who are robbing poor families of the incentive to obtain the American dream through their own efforts.

Thus, we have the logically inferior and dishonest debate tactics (I call them *tactics*, not fallacies) of today such as presenting numbers like, "there's only a -0.0002 per cent drop in murder per thousand per thousand stop and frisks per year" instead of "it saves 1,600 lives per year."

I wouldn't call it a "partay," I'd call it continuing to refuse to acknowledge facts in which to make logical decisions for the good of the nation.

lets not forget the party of lincoln has radically changed as has the DEMOCRATIC. prior to Roosevelt one could consider the dems to be a party of racists in the south and social liberals and conservatives elsewhere.

I agree the republican party is what caused the civil rights movement and the answer to that was kennedy and johnson pushing the civil rights movement into law. If it were for the southern racist republicans this would never have happened

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Chris, I can answer that very direct question


"No"




Which may demonstrate that a closed question with insufficient background may not get the answer you were looking for...

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Ah, but the answer could mean "No, because I never started".
Or, if the answer had been "Yes" it might mean "Yes, because I'm not in a position to do so any more", or "Yes, I've stopped as the result of a behavioural change".

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

That is a fairly standard debating technique, demanding a simple yes or no answer when none exists. The only valid reply to that is "I cannot answer that with a yes or no because ...". If you phrase your response correctly, you can make the person asking the question look like an idiot and/or devious.

I often get questions like that from lawyers as the last in a long string of questions that really have simple yes/no answers. Your opponent is usually hoping you will be caught up in the rhythm of quick question-quick reply and give a quick yes or no when, as Chris pointed out, both harm your position - because both are incorrect.

---

"At chess yes, she is too good."

Excellent, i shall remember that line.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.