Logical Fallacies

[Chris.Roth]

Winning may not be everything, but it is the only thing that matters.



When all is passed away, will they say of you, "he fought well, and was defeated, a minor footnote," or rather, "he came, he saw, he conquered."

I highly disagree with your statement. I could easily make up lies about religion, and if no one knew any better, my argument would seem valid. Winning does NOT matter, the words do. The idea of "winning" a debate on some merrit of stupid audiences, and therefore using fallacies as a tool is morally disgusting in my eye. Your point does not seem to counter mine in any way.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Hitchen's position that Iraq was a failed state, that met all requirements and precedents for intervention?

What facts or arguments could have been used as leverage against this position (without resorting to asshattery, as you seem to feel that the debate fell into)?

The study of philosophy and debates are not equal.

Then why should I not just use every fallacy before hand? Why should I try to make a genuine argument in debate? Hell, we might as well let the art of such a platform fall into the pitfalls of smearing one anothers name. You aren't wrong about Hitchens position, however, resorting to fallacy to defend it is still not acceptable. No one here has given me a reason yet for fallacy to be used. They've said it helps win, they've said it's the only response Galloway could think of, but no one has said why it's actually the right thing to do.