Insin's 12: A Debate Fallacy Guide

Discussion in 'Random Topic Center' started by Cyrus, Jul 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    I found a really good list of "debate fallacies," posted by Insin of TheAnimeLounge. Since most people who discuss politics here actively make at least one of these mistakes (including myself), I figured that this would be a nice reference:

     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2009
  2. Missingno

    Missingno New Member

    Wow, this is...I don't know a word for it. It feels like English class all over again, but in a good way. I wish everyone on the gym had this basic knowledge.
     
  3. Mewtant

    Mewtant New Member

    One of the best posts regarding "arguments" I have seen so far... Can we please make this required reading for a select few??? C'mon, you know who you are...
     
  4. pat460

    pat460 New Member

    Sticky please. Would solve a lot of headaches in the future.
     
  5. DarthPika

    DarthPika New Member

    ^ Agreed. I'm sick of arguing with people who use all 12 of those. ;)
     
  6. Regis_Neo

    Regis_Neo Moderator

    Logical fallacies are fallacies in themselves, as far as I care.
     
  7. yoyofsho16

    yoyofsho16 New Member

    13) The DarthPika: Comparing 2 extreme cases (one good, one bad) to prove a point to the good extreme

    "Japanese packs are better because I once pulled a Lv X and a Shiny in the same pack. English packs are worse because I pulled an RH Tauros and a Luvdisc in a pack once."
     
  8. Azure Kite

    Azure Kite New Member

    Aaaah yes. I'm familiar with plenty of these terms, as I do policy debate. Most of us use these without even knowing.
     
  9. Articjedi

    Articjedi New Member

    You forgot the moderation fallacy, the one where both sides of an arguement are too extreme so the solution must always be in the middle.

    I want to kill puppies
    I don't want to kill puppies
    Therefore we should kill half the puppies.
     
  10. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    Moderation fallacy is an excellent point, Matt, but I didn't "forget" anything - I just copy/pasted this TAL poster's with some minor cosmetic edits (and the whole thirteenth point removed).
     
  11. Yoshi-

    Yoshi- New Member

    Didnt you say that the doctor healed you from talking to yourself :p ?

    ~~~


    "ELK is a Canadian, what does he know about government?"

    EPIC :lol:

    IMO most of these examples are to extreme, no one would really argue like that xD
     
  12. pat460

    pat460 New Member

    It happens more often than you think. Still think this should be stickied, especially with all the debate threads in the RTC.
     
  13. Will-iam

    Will-iam New Member

    In a sense they are logical fallacies since they all more or less beg or display the question without answering or solving it. Though that is not the fault of the logical fallacies rather it is the limitation of our observation obscured in scope by time and space the very essential grounds for the necessity of observation in the first place.

    The only logic we can really set out to prove is the logic we ourselves write that is in the realm of the abstract and even then we have to be careful and make sure whatever hypothetical equation is made up, is made up of a formula that persists from start to end.

    The logical fallacies are to be avoided at all costs if one wishes to obtain the ascendency of agreement of the audience through fair and logical means; though the end result, since each result is ultimately unique and unto itself will have a solution gone unproven in the laws of logic outside of its periphery or frame of reference.

    Ironically we know our observational liberties and limitations and that which provides the liberty to observe simultaneously sets the limits to the laws of obscurity and vice versa which in itself is untenable since it eliminates the constituent/s of cause or ground which will always remain debated and unsolved due to what I have mentioned in this response.
     
  14. toxictaipan

    toxictaipan New Member

    No, it happens.

    "God is beyond our logic, therefore we cannot know."
    God knows I've heard that one enough. That's the go-to line once you ask where God came from. :/

    Thanks for posting this! Maybe this will help with some of the idiotic arguements around here.




    [size=+2]STICKY PLEASE![/size]
     
  15. SuperWooper

    SuperWooper New Member

    It is certainly fallacious to rely so strongly on the word of Heero the mod (especially given the subjective nature of his claim), but what if so-and-so is an expert on such-and-such a subject? At what point is it acceptable to take a man's word in regards to an objective matter?

    I think #4 should be revised to read:

    "This occurs whenever someone states a subjective claim to be true because so-and-so said it was."
     
  16. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    The point behind #4 is that the appeal is just to the status, and not to anything greater:

    e.g., I believe that Woopers are the greatest Pokemon because SuperWooper said so.

    Even if SuperWooper is an expert on Woopers, the person is following SuperWooper based on Wooper's experiences - not his/her own.

    Now, if that person were to make a further connection in discussion, then it would be less of a fallacy, if it's even a fallacy at all:

    "It is a proven fact that Woopers can withstand nuclear bombs. SuperWooper, the world's foremost expert on Woopers, believes that this is sufficient enough to make it the greatest Pokemon. I am inclined to agree."

    That seems more on par with what you're saying.
     
  17. SuperWooper

    SuperWooper New Member

    All the SuperWoopers and Woopers in that post boggled my mind. You should have gone with Bill Nye the Science Guy and cockroaches.

    I think I understand what #4 is designed to discourage. I still think that the word "subjective" should be inserted there to make it not just clearer, but correct. If drawing on the objective study and research of an expert based on his status as an expert is prohibited, how can any non-expert support his position on a topic whose complexities elude him?

    Say you cite a journal in a paper for school. If your teacher asks you why you trust the article in the journal, your response would probably be, "It's an acceptable and trustworthy source." And let us say that it is, for the purposes of this imaginary school project. But your teacher tells you that you're only a student, and your knowledge of the subject is inadequate. Furthermore, your teacher claims that, because of your inadequacy, the only basis you have for citing this journal is your trust in the author's scholarly reputation, and not any conviction that what the article says is true.

    According to my understanding of how #4 is currently written, the teacher is correct, and the student is guilty of a fallacy in citing this journal. But the teacher is two-faced if he would criticize the student for his mistake, because the teacher okayed the source in the first place. Still, he is correct that the student has Appealed to Authority (#4). How can these things be reconciled? By acknowledging that it is no mistake to rely on the objective word of an expert based on belief in his status as an expert, and that, by consequence, the fallacious thing is to rely on the subjective word of an expert based solely on belief in his expert status.
     
  18. Articjedi

    Articjedi New Member

    Actually, now that I think about it, I do recall a weird episode where a student was arguing with his english professor as to using a word that didn't exist. When asked where the word came from, it was a term used in magic: the gathering. So was the student supposed to accept his authority, or was he supposed to keep arguing. Eventually he e-mailed wizards himself, and they said that the word in question was made up. Go figure.
     
  19. Dr. Mason

    Dr. Mason New Member

    Hey kids, welcome to SUPESIES PSYCHIC PREDICTIONS EMPORIUM!

    Today, I will predict the outcome of a promising thread.

    Oh dear...I see that...

    People will enter and claim to never do any of these things...

    Haha! Implying perfection of an inherently flawed species!

    In fact, several people who are prominently guilty of these are claiming innocence.

    So while everyone pats themselves on the back for being such good debaters, let's watch as this turns into a flamefest utilizing all twelve fallacies.

    Also, today Supesy will bake Peanut Butter cookies.

    THIS POST IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT IS AMUSING, THEREFORE IT IS RELEVANT
     
  20. Phazon Elite

    Phazon Elite New Member

    Most people think DarthPika uses an endless cavalcade of fallacies to give his arguments merit, so he obviously does. ; )
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page