A debate may very well be about "winning over the audience", but it's winning them over using an argument. Fallacies are fallacies for a reason. Just because something wins over the audience does not make it true. If a debator is simply going to use whatever cheap fallacies they can to win over an audience, that doesn't make their argument right, it doesn't make their point valid, and it doesn't mean they are a smarter/better debator than the other person. Now I've pointed out here that fallacies happen, no one can avoid them. However, I also directly referenced the Galloway/Hitchens debate for a reason. Why is it I never posted this discussion before? Because I'd never seen the Galloway/Hitchens debate. I also heard no arguments from Galloway that directly referenced the issues with the middle east. Almost every argument he made was "Hitchens, you are a dog" "Hitchens, you are slime" "when you were younger, you believed differently, doesn't that mean you're always wrong?" None of this referenced the question of the debate, it was shameless avoidance. I've seen plenty of debates where appeal to emotion is used (a fallacy) or where the genetic fallacy is used (such as the argument that America was founded on 'christian values'. Even if that were true, it doesn't mean America is better off as a 'christian nation', and the fact that it came from such is a fallacy.) I'm used to these fallacies though, and I think we all accept and counter these arguments as opposed to saying "you're just making fallacies." Misplacing the burden of proof happens often as well. Personal attack ad hominem is not in any way an attempt at an argument, it's simply smearing your opponent and hoping you can get away with childish antics that should stop being considered impressive after middle school. Many people here, I feel, have completely missed my point.
Chris Roth
http://thereligiousfallacy.wordpress.com/
http://thereligiousfallacy.wordpress.com/