Debate Fallacies - Page 2

February 22, 2008, 3:55 PM

I'd also like to add to that by saying that you don't necessarily need someone who's an expert at debating to proofread your argument. Try looking for someone who doesn't necessarily agree with you because if you pick someone who agrees with you, they might be biased in their opinion of your argument, and someone who has a different view of things won't be afraid to tell you what's wrong with your argument because they might not care what your argument is.

February 23, 2008, 1:59 AM

Quote:

Slippery Slope

Thanks go to Mitsuki. This is when you take somebody's points, and take it completely out of proportion. Blowing things up to be uber-large conspiracies (yes, uber is a word) is one such idea. By blowing something up, you completely discredit your own reliability.

but if you agree with that point and then exagerate it ironically, you are making the person who made the original statement look bad.
or is that what you meant? ><

February 24, 2008, 7:59 PM

I recommend pinning this topic. I have to admit, I've been guily of 'Hitting the Strawman' a few times, though I realise that I've been doing it and do end up getting back on top of things. It's quite possibly the easiest one to fall into, because it's a gradual thing - you'll use an example to contradict someone else's example and then they'll reply by doing the same thing - sooner or later, you're stuck in limbo until someone's infracted, hahah. Anyway, even though I'm not prone to much else, it's still useful to have this.

April 5, 2008, 4:12 PM

Added the "Post Hoc" and "Appeal to Probability" Fallacies.

And I, too, request that this topic be stickied. I think it would be something good for debaters to see.

April 5, 2008, 4:15 PM

-Stickied-

I still think it should be stickied in Shinra Building since these fallacies not only apply in Religious Debates, but to general debating as well. But since you still want it here, then it shall be so. xD

April 5, 2008, 4:18 PM

In that case, I shall make a duplicate of this thread in both the ShinRa Building and the Mayor's Office.

As per your request, my dear

And thankee for the sticky

April 5, 2008, 4:53 PM

Did we add sophistry, or did we already have several different examples of them under a different name?

July 31, 2008, 9:54 PM

Quote:

Strawman

Hitting the Strawman is attacking the points of someone's argument rather than the argument itself. By attacking the evidence itself, you are not debating what the argument is, and instead going off on an irrellevent tangent.

This is a common misconception, but not a strawman. A strawman is not attacking the points of someones argument. It is taking someones point, making an assumption about the person (or their stance) 'based' on it (that may not even be true) and defeating it. For example, if someone says 'I believe god is not real.' A strawman would be if your opponent says 'You are evil then! And want to kill people! This is wrong'. A strawman is when someone changes your argument (we'll call your argument A) completely in (what we'll call 'B') and defeats position B, acting like they have defeated A. It doesn have to do with the evidence, jsut making a false assumption based on your original argument, and proving that assumption wrong. It is when you distort the position/argument, and defeat the new argument you created.

Quote:

Flamatory Fighting/Ad Hominem

Basically, Ad Hominem (Flamatory Fighting was a term I invented xD) is proceeding to knock down your opponent instead of the argument.

Ad Hominem is NOT NOT when a person is personally attacked. Calling someone a reatrd is not an ad hominem. It is when you use a personal attack to defeat the position. You ARE trying to knock down the argument, wrongly (not a word) of course. real example:

Someone says 'i believe A' and you say 'you are shithead and therefore B is right' (leaving out the thereore part would mean it is not an ad hominem.). A typical example would be 'Hitler was a bad man, a dick, etc, therefore being an atheist is wrong.' (Funnily enough hitler was catholic anyway, but well ignore that.)

Actually I recommend putting this link in the first post. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSrC0TQnqP8 (ognoring the first part.)

July 31, 2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX Marks the Spot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSrC0TQnqP8

Just like to say thanks for the link! That was very enjoyable and informative.

Also I wish I noticed this thread earlier, Thanks to all that contributed.