[Serious] Fallacies & Strategies

[John 6IX Breezy]

This might be a hard question to answer without examples. But what are some good ways to refute your favorite fallacy, without labeling it as that fallacy, or giving a textbook definition for why that fallacy is wrong?

For example, with a strawman. You might tell someone that the reason they're arguing against Y instead of X, is because arguing against X would make them sound irrational. Presumably this forces them to notice the shift, and if they do try to argue against X now, they have to address why they're not irrational for doing so.

Basically, I'm wondering if you guys have ever used someone's fallacy against them as a strategic advantage. Rather than just dismissing it as a fallacy. And if so what are some of your examples?

[The Valkyrie]

(Serious). In person, kicking the other person in the crotch seems to work for me.

[Fake Messiah]

The only way usually is to label it as a fallacy because fallacies are usually used to derail the conversation from the subject to something else, and that else is usually the speaker. Like in the case of the Ad Hominem fallacy, it is used to quickly derail the conversation from the subject to the speaker personally.

And from my observations, one of the most common subjects that is usually very hard to have a conversation about without theists immediately bombarding it with fallacies is the historicity of Jesus. You immediately get fallacies like "You have a grudge against Christianity therefore you claim Jesus did not exist."

So I usually say, "No this is not going to be a conversation about me, so if you don't have anything to say about the topic of discussion stay quiet."

[Angrboda]

Misapplication of the law of the excluded middle is one of the best ones if there are real-world examples of things outside the possibilities the person is assuming exhaust the set.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Moderator Notice
If you’re going to create a Serious thread, please use the tag when you start the thread, as opposed to adding it later. The whole idea behind the Serious tag was to help keep threads on topic, not to alter the tone of the thread because you don’t like the way it’s turning out.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I prefer to use reductions to the absurd to highlight a logical fallacy. It’s to elicit a laugh. Laughs are more advantageous, imo, when you want to help someone critically assess their ideas. They also help you, when dealing with a persons whose ideas are a bit more than just poorly formed or wrong.

[Anomalocaris]

(Serious). In person, kicking the other person in the crotch seems to work for me.

You have to get too close.   I prefer to cover a small number of degrees of latitude and longitude around the other person with cluster munition to remove the need for examining his argument for logical inconsistency.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I prefer the Socratic method - ask them questions until they've painted themselves into a corner and resorted to profanity. That's when I know I've won.

Boru

[Belacqua]

This might be a hard question to answer without examples. But what are some good ways to refute your favorite fallacy, without labeling it as that fallacy, or giving a textbook definition for why that fallacy is wrong?

For example, with a strawman. You might tell someone that the reason they're arguing against Y instead of X, is because arguing against X would make them sound irrational. Presumably this forces them to notice the shift, and if they do try to argue against X now, they have to address why they're not irrational for doing so.

Basically, I'm wondering if you guys have ever used someone's fallacy against them as a strategic advantage. Rather than just dismissing it as a fallacy. And if so what are some of your examples?

I'm pretty sure the logical fallacy I've seen the most is when people beg the question. 

It's generally something along the lines of:

"Only those things that science demonstrates can be considered true."
"And how do we know this?"
"Because only science demonstrates what's true."

Or the naive atheist version:

"I don't believe in God because there's no scientific evidence for him."
"And how do you know that God is something for which there would be scientific evidence?"
"Because there's scientific evidence for real things, and God isn't real."

I'm perfectly willing to tell someone when he's begging the question, but I don't recall a time when it's ever done any good. If they're willing to commit such a blatant fallacy, they're deeply committed to their metaphysical belief, and can't imagine not affirming the consequent.

[Fake Messiah]

I'm perfectly willing to tell someone when he's begging the question, but I don't recall a time when it's ever done any good. If they're willing to commit such a blatant fallacy, they're deeply committed to their metaphysical belief, and can't imagine not affirming the consequent.

Then how do you choose to believe in stuff without any evidence? Or do you believe in everything like faeries, Elvis being alive, and gnomes because, according to you, seeking scientific evidence is a blatant fallacy?