Deliberate use of fallacy

[Outtahere]

Is it right to deliberately use fallacy in rhetoric if one thinks it will get a point accepted?

If you need fallacies to bring a point across, you haven't got a point to begin with.

If this were true , stand up comedy would not exist. Geniuses such as George Carlin have always been able to convey brilliance and poignancy all the while wrapping it in pure farce and silliness for the sake of making uncomfortable subject matter palatable to all audiences.

Doc

[abaris]

If this were true , stand up comedy would not exist.

Comedy nad satire is a totally different pair of shoes.

[bennyboy]

Is it right to deliberately use fallacy in rhetoric if one thinks it will get a point accepted?

If you need fallacies to bring a point across, you haven't got a point to begin with. It's a different matter if you tailor your arguments to suit a particular audience. That can be achieved without outright lying, which fallacies are all about, if we're honest.

I guess it depends if you want to "win" logically, or actually manipulate the other person's ideas. I think to get someone to change something at their core, you're going to have to create a crack in the egg somehow-- and ideas almost never seem to do that. Either you have to completely mystify them, or they have to hit a crisis point. I suppose the death of a loved one would be the most common reason for people to leave-- or to join, for that matter-- a religious ideology. But perhaps a simulated crisis, via a very imaginative appeal to emotion, could have a similar effect?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If this were true , stand up comedy would not exist.

Comedy nad satire is a totally different pair of shoes.

With Carlin's comedy, it was a sort of argument -- an argument for his particular worldview.

[CapnAwesome]

I think 'gun deaths' is a type of logical fallacy. A death is a death regardless of the means.

That's silly. In trying to eliminate or minimize needless deaths, you have to categorize the cause of death. It's not like if the family of some kid who shot himself in the face didn't have a gun, he would have slipped in the shower instead-- at least not at that moment. He would have been reading comic books or jerking off or something.

The problem with what you're saying is that everyone thinks the statistics are "those other guys." Then they're surprised when it turns out that they aren't special God-favored snowflakes, and their kid's face is as susceptible to bullets as those of all those "just numbers" they thought didn't apply to them. You know what? I think you don't care about any of those kids, or their families. You'd rather hold some goofy idea about statistics, which no sensible person can believe in, than take real steps to protect little Johnny here:

I, for one, think this boy's life is valuable enough to justifying trying to keep it from being blown all over the wall of his parents' closet.

Appeal to emotion anyone? Are you deliberately using fallacies on me as a test case?

[bennyboy]

Appeal to emotion anyone? Are you deliberately using fallacies on me as a test case?

---

Comedy nad satire is a totally different pair of shoes.

With Carlin's comedy, it was a sort of argument -- an argument for his particular worldview.

I think all comedy is like this-- it throws into the light of absurdity one world view, and implies another better one.

[Pizza]

Random thought, I wonder if other forms of reasoning besides argumentative reasoning are important and should not be neglected. Like reasoning that isn't straight up deduction or induction.

[bennyboy]

Random thought, I wonder if other forms of reasoning besides argumentative reasoning are important and should not be neglected. Like reasoning that isn't straight up deduction or induction.

Like what?

[Mudhammam]

Is it right to deliberately use fallacy in rhetoric if one thinks it will get a point accepted?

For example, if I know Republicans won't "get" logical arguments-- statistics on gun deaths, for example-- is it right to use appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, and argumentum ad populum? Or does this introduce a kind of Achilles heel-- you'll plow through the masses, and then end up getting embarrassed when you eventually come across a decent debater? Or, on the other hand, will you end up so wrapped up in the web of bullshit that you are spinning, that you will ending degrading your own intellect?

It occurs to me that the Fox News people, for example, may actually be highly intelligent. They may know their crowd, and may be manipulating that crowd in a measured and deliberate way.

First, I don't think the success that Fox News has in manipulating the conversation should inspire much enthusiasm for any debating tactic, since their approach to what can only be called overt propaganda is to minimize legitimate debate. Second, I don't really think, as a rule of thumb, the goal of any debate should simply be to win an argument, or even to persuade the opponent. In my view, of equal importance, is not only the triumph of truth but the actual process of how one arrived there. I don't want people to agree with me just for the sake of agreement or common cause, I want people to understand how to assess their own positions in the context of logic and evidence.

[robvalue]

If you're dealing with a debate that is going to be available on the internet, then no matter what your opponent and the live audience think about who "won" the debate, the internet viewers are the ones you should be trying to reach. So by remaining honest, you will hopefully gain credibility and respect from those viewers and ultimately change the most minds.

If that's not the case, then cheating back at the cheater is more appealing, since it will expose the fraudulent nature of the opponent to the audience, hopefully.

Not that I've ever been in any formal debates! So I'm just putting forward my opinion

You know, I think I'd enjoy doing one though.