Logical Fallacies

[Tempus]

What do I win?

The prize prepared for such an occasion was a stick, funnily enough.

[Chris.Roth]

I'd say the reason you're pushing the point so hard is because you've got a stick up your ass. How's that for appealing to emotion?



What do I win?

You win the further retardation of humanity, congratulations.

[NoMoreFaith]

You win the further retardation of humanity, congratulations.

You're being too idealistic. The fact remains that debates are very much a game. Save your anger for the methodology, not those that point out ugly truths.

Nothing wrong with ideals, as long as they don't blind you to the truth of a situation.

[Gambit]

Fallacies are a legitimate part of debate; both in their use and the accusation of their use. The whole point is to make your argument appealing to the audience. Sometimes you may not have a very appealing argument, so clever maneuvering is required. As someone already pointed out; the use of logical fallacies alone does not mean an argument is wrong, it can be the case that the argument is not being represented correctly. People often call out fallacies, knowing full well that the argument itself is sound, in order to discredit their opponent - argument from fallacy, is one such example of this tactic.

[Chris.Roth]

The discussion of fallacies in general is well appreciated on my part. As I said before, the accidental slip of a fallacy or necessity to use one in order to sustain an argument is understandable. However, using one every 10 seconds (furthermore, the SAME fallacy over and over again) should be recognized as quite pathetic. I have seen many times where Hitchens, Dawkins, hell any person I happen to agree with, has been put in an uncomfortable place by argument; has had the audience against them; have lost a debate. Both debators have used fallacies, perhaps. Maybe only has has, who cares? No one notices because it's not abjectly obvious. However, in the debate I referenced, perhaps I should rephrase my question: Was Galloway using fallacies to a point of non sequitur, or did his fallacies have any sort of genuine reason?

---

You win the further retardation of humanity, congratulations.

You're being too idealistic. The fact remains that debates are very much a game. Save your anger for the methodology, not those that point out ugly truths.

Nothing wrong with ideals, as long as they don't blind you to the truth of a situation.

Well I can't quite be blinded to the truth of a situation as I see the situation at hand. I do, however, feel that disregarding the obvious ugly truth, or avoiding it, has the potential to hinder objectivity. Debate, in my opinion, is about more than winning. It's about presenting an argument for a very real situation. (My reference earlier to Starcraft can be used here as well--no person will be changed in their ideals, most likely, from watching a Starcraft game. However, a persons entire foundation can be uprooted by seeing the right argument at a debate.) Perhaps my primary argument is to those who choose to embark on debate, and the argument is simple--respect the format. Respect the fallacies you use. Respect your own fucking audience, for God's sake.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I agree with Chris completely. Intentionally using logical fallacies as tools to win a debate is intellectually dishonest. It's cheating, and there is no point in debating anyone who cheats.

See pz myers, "Why I don't debate christians anymore, part whatever...":

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

In high school,from age 16,I often took part in debates. I always took the position contra to my real opinion,and often won. My idea was to improve my thinking skills. Didn't work. I just learned to be more devious than I was already.

What I learned was not to conflate winning an argument/debate with being right [as a principle]. I also learned how hard it is to change most people's strongly held opinions about anything,assuming one is interested enough to try,which I rarely am. I also learned that consistently open minded people ,as with consistently rational people are as common as unicorn shit.

[Tempus]

I also learned that consistently open minded people ,as with consistently rational people are as common as unicorn shit.

I actually stepped in a pile of that this morning. Thankfully, it was made of sugary gummy worms so I picked up a handful and ate it.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

In high school,from age 16,I often took part in debates. I always took the position contra to my real opinion,and often won. My idea was to improve my thinking skills. Didn't work. I just learned to be more devious than I was already.

What I learned was not to conflate winning an argument/debate with being right [as a principle]. I also learned how hard it is to change most people's strongly held opinions about anything,assuming one is interested enough to try,which I rarely am. I also learned that consistently open minded people ,as with consistently rational people are as common as unicorn shit.

Such debates are skewed toward those who cheat. Personal honesty is irrelevant. I find them to be irrelevant to the real world.

One problem I see, though, is that most judicial systems are set up in the same sort of format...

[dean211284]

Can someone explain fallacies to me. And how galloway used them? (sorry. New here)