Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 30, 2020, 4:16 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Logical Fallacies
#11
RE: Logical Fallacies
Appeals to emotion or the mob have always worked better in spectator sports than a dry recitation of the rules. This is one (of the many) reasons that religion appeals in the first place amigo. Does it make for a strong argument (within the scope of academics) nope, does it make for a strong argument (within the scope of public perception) yep.

Don't you feel, believe, intuit, etc. Jerkoff
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a battle to commence then KPLOW, I hit em with the illness of my quill, Im endowed..with certain unalienable skills....  

-ERB


Reply
#12
RE: Logical Fallacies
(June 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm)Chris.Roth Wrote: 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.

Of course it doesn't make it true. However, it gives the audience the perception that it's true - which for a great many people, is indistinguishable from "truth".
Reply
#13
RE: Logical Fallacies
(June 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm)Tempus Wrote:
(June 27, 2012 at 8:17 am)apophenia Wrote: This is why religious debaters prepare the field months in advance, stacking the crowd with friendlies, busing them in often, manipulating the promotion before the debate in often unscrupulous ways, knowing what they need to succeed and ensuring the secularist agrees to all the wrong things in setting the ground rules. Skilled religious debaters make an easy meal of inexperienced secularists who are unfamiliar with 'the game'. And even knowing in advance, the general lay of the land usually ends up pitched in the religious debater's favor.

While I was already well aware that winning over the audience is done with emotional appeals and the like, I'm not familiar with what you've mentioned here. Do you have any specific instances you can mention where this has happened? I'd be interested in reading more about the bolded part.

The examples are out there. You just have to find them. I'm guessing, but I probably ran across many reading TalkOrigins.org, and other sites devoted to the evolution / creation debate. Not exactly an example of the above, but one I recently came across:

Michael Martin Wrote:On the evening of October 26, 1994 a debate on the existence of God was scheduled between the late Greg Bahnsen and me at Rhodes College. This debate was canceled when SCCCS and I could not agree on whether the debate was to be taped and the tapes sold commercially. In place of the debate Bahnsen gave a lecture at Rhodes College that night. In order to explain my position I asked Marty Fields, the debate organizer, to read the following prepared statement to audience before Bahnsen spoke.

Quote:To Be Read Before Dr. Bahnsen Speaks on Oct. 26, 1994

I will not be participating in the debate at Rhodes College that was scheduled for this evening. I want you, the audience, to know the reason why I am not here.

Last spring Mr. Marty Fields arranged for a debate on the existence of God between Dr. Bahnsen and me to be held on October 26. In May I received a letter from Mr. Fields confirming the details. From May to early October I looked forward to the opportunity of appearing on the platform with Dr. Bahnsen and prepared long and hard for this debate. During this period I talked to Mr. Fields on the telephone several times about the debate format. At no time was anything ever said or implied, either in writing or in our telephone conversations, about the debate being recorded in any way. It was only in early October, when I telephoned Mr. Field about my travel arrangements to Memphis, that I was informed that the Southern California Center for Christian Studies, Dr. Bahnsen's sponsoring organization, had placed a condition on Dr. Bahnsen's own appearance. The condition was that Dr. Bahnsen would only participate in the debate if I signed a release form giving permission to tape the debate for later sale. After due consideration I informed Mr. Fields that this condition was unacceptable to me. My reason was clear and principled: As an atheist I did not want my participation in any debate to contribute to the financial support of a religious organization. Soon after I was contacted by a representative of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies who proposed that this organization and I would both have rights to tape the debate and sell it. Although this would have made it possible for an atheist group as well as Dr. Bahnsen's Center to profit from the debate, I rejected the proposal: my participation in the debate would still financially support a religious organization.

On October 13 I received a FAX from a representative of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies delivering an ultimatum: for the debate to proceed I must sign a release form no later than noon of October 14. A reply was Faxed back to the Center saying that although I would not sign their form I would be happy to participate in the debate so long as it was not taped and requesting that an agreement be signed to this effect.

The Southern California Center for Christian Studies and I seemed to have reached an impasse, but matters did not stop there. The response of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies to my principled objection to its profiting from my participation in the debate was to issue a press release on October 17 accusing me of cowardliness. To a former Marine, the suggestion that his conduct is cowardly is insulting in any context. But in the present context, where I have repeatedly expressed my willingness to debate, the accusation is outrageous and the press release itself defamatory.

The reason why I was interested in debating Dr. Bahnsen in the first place is that I take his position on God very seriously. I am quite willing to come to Rhodes College to give my views about the problems involved in Dr. Bahnsen's defense of Christianity. Of course, my offer to debate Dr. Bahnsen still stands. I was willing, am willing and will continue to be willing to debate Dr. Bahnsen so long as the debate is not taped.

I hope this statement lays to rest once and for all any lingering suspicions that I am afraid to engage in serious public debate with Dr. Bahnsen.

— Michael Martin

I have only recently learned that Mr. Fields chose not to honor my request to read my prepared statement. That is regrettable for despite the clear and principled reasons for declining to debate that I expressed to SCCCS, confusions, distortions, and misinformation concerning my motives continue to be circulated. In particular, Michael Butler, Jeffrey Ventrella, and Marty Fields have commented on these matters on the Internet. I hope in this note to clear up some of the issues.


General Comments

The first thing to stress is that what happened regarding the cancellation of the debate should be described correctly. This has often not been done. In fact, the debate was canceled by mutual consent because of a disagreement that could not be reconciled. However, as the situation is usually described, I pulled out of the debate because I refused to participate if it was taped and I therefore am made the guilty party and put on the defense. But what is forgotten — although it should be clear from the above statement — is that I was quite willing to debate provided the debate was not taped and that Bahnsen is the one who would not proceed under these conditions. It is interesting that no one representing SCCCS or the sponsoring organization describes the situation as Bahnsen pulling out of the debate although this account is just as accurate as the description of my pulling out. Is this apparent asymmetry because Bahnsen "showed up" at the scheduled time? But he showed up to give a lecture — not to debate. I was also willing to give a lecture at the scheduled time but I was not invited to do so.






(June 27, 2012 at 3:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:
(June 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm)Chris.Roth Wrote: 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.

Of course it doesn't make it true. However, it gives the audience the perception that it's true - which for a great many people, is indistinguishable from "truth".

But is there anything beyond the perception of the reality? That is the reality. esse est percipi. The aim is for clarity of perception, and in understanding experience. My previous signature had a relevant quote from Chrysippus. To the Stoics, wisdom consisted in being able to choose the true from the false, to apprehend, and select out only correct apprehensions. This, too, was the foundation of their theory of happiness: wisdom == happiness == always right choosing. However the Skeptics denied it possible to meet this standard. That no one is truly wise. And a miss is as good as a mile. Or as Chrysippus opined, "A man a cubit below the water is drowning as much as a man five hundred fathoms down."


Reply
#14
RE: Logical Fallacies
I've heard more than enough. I thank all of you, first and foremost, for your input. However, here's my genuine say/opinion:

A: A debate is about winning the audience, not about winning the argument. This is an absurd way to think of a debate. Debate is not something I think of as simply a fun night out on the town, it's a genuine discussion which should invoke thought on both the debators and the audiences part. Just because you know an audience is stupid enough to fall for your fallacies does NOT mean it's acceptable to use them. Treat your audience as an equal, or I have no respect for you.

B: Fallacies are human, they're expected. True, however, those involved in debate must have spent a great deal of time researching their subject matter. I know for a fact that Hitchens put more research into his arguments than most people put into anything. To respond to genuine arguments with fallacy, and then win an audience or even a portion of it does not give you an out. In fact, I find it condescending and manipulative, furthering the stupidity of the spectators.

My argument is not to say that as soon as a single fallacy is made, a debator should be excluded from the discussion. My argument is that anyone who takes on the responsibility of delivering a message in a debate should not get away that easy. Using differing fallacies is one thing--using the same fallacy over and over and over and over on the other hand, is absurd. I'm really curious who in this discussion actually watched the debate I mentioned, because I referenced it for a reason. If you are a debator who uses fallacies in a way such as Galloway did, (which is WHY I referenced the debate) I believe you are truly a disgusting human being, furthering the stupidity of humanity by expressing stupidity yourself. While religion may have difficulties with logic, that's not what I'm discussing--that's why I posted this in the philosophy section. The argumentive fallacies are some of the building blocks of philosophy. This debate wasn't about religion, it was about Iraq and the war. Both sides had the opportunity to present facts, and there are plenty that could have been used against Hitchens. In fact, it's one of the few arguments he's made that I'm not completely sure I agree with him on. However, he still respected the argument, and respected his audience enough to use REAL arguments. Don't try and dismiss those fallacies made by Galloway, and never try to justify them--he had every chance to make his argument a genuine one and took no chances to do so. I hope I'm not being too harsh with my words, but I genuinely mean every single one of them.

Again, thank you for your responses.
Reply
#15
RE: Logical Fallacies



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."


Reply
#16
RE: Logical Fallacies
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.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a battle to commence then KPLOW, I hit em with the illness of my quill, Im endowed..with certain unalienable skills....  

-ERB


Reply
#17
RE: Logical Fallacies
(June 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm)apophenia Wrote:


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.

(June 27, 2012 at 5:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.
Reply
#18
RE: Logical Fallacies
I'm not sure that what you find morally disgusting matters much in the area of debate (except to you). As to your question, do you want to "win" a debate or explore a topic? If you want to "win" a debate, yes, if you have reason to believe that any given fallacy will sway the audience, you leverage that. If you want to explore a topic..wtf are you doing in a debate?
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a battle to commence then KPLOW, I hit em with the illness of my quill, Im endowed..with certain unalienable skills....  

-ERB


Reply
#19
RE: Logical Fallacies
(June 27, 2012 at 5:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure that what you find morally disgusting matters much in the area of debate (except to you). As to your question, do you want to "win" a debate or explore topic? If you wnt to win a debate, yes, if you have reason to believe that any given fallacy will sway the audience, you leverage that. If you want to explore a topic..wtf are you doing in a debate?


What I find morally disgusting isn't just some random argument I made out of my ass, my friend--it's based on the building blocks of argument. We all learn as writers and debators of the logical fallacies, and why they are wrong. Yet I've found many people here trying to defend Galloway, as I'd referenced him. Defended his fallacies. By the way, there was no winner by poll that I saw in that debate. So why did it matter so much? I still restate my question, have you actually watched the debate I presented?
Reply
#20
RE: Logical Fallacies
Couple years back, yeah, though I can't claim to be bothered enough to watch it again now to deal with your objections. It's not required. Debate (especially a debate like this one) is a spectator sport, whether it should be or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether anything is gained by it or not.

Publicized debates are games, and games have gamers. I understand what you find dissatisfying about that, I really do, but what you find dissatisfying doesn't, strictly speaking, matter.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a battle to commence then KPLOW, I hit em with the illness of my quill, Im endowed..with certain unalienable skills....  

-ERB


Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Logic Fallacies: A Quiz to Test Your Knowledge, A Cheat Sheet to Refresh It Rhondazvous 0 595 March 6, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  Is there a logical, rational reason why hate is bad? WisdomOfTheTrees 27 2158 February 4, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  AF Hall of Fallacies Ray101aan 107 54043 January 12, 2017 at 5:44 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Logical Absolutes Tiberius 14 11985 November 20, 2016 at 3:23 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes Edwardo Piet 30 3853 November 20, 2016 at 8:05 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Logical contradictions in certain notions of monotheistic deities Mudhammam 5 938 May 7, 2016 at 12:08 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  All Logical Fallacies Heat 20 1743 April 3, 2016 at 10:45 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism? Whateverist 301 27860 October 23, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Last Post: TreeSapNest
  Why all "Logical Proofs Of God" fail ... MitchBenn 90 11105 March 19, 2014 at 7:56 am
Last Post: tor
  Flashy site for logical fallacies. Tiberius 12 4291 August 27, 2012 at 5:07 am
Last Post: Tempus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)