Debate Fallacies

February 18, 2008, 2:05 AM

Well, I got this idea from Angelus, actually. Kudos to her for inspiring me to do this.

I'm going to make a list of debate fallacies for the Religious Debate section. Why? Because I am noticing some fallacies. Due to privacy matters, I will not use actual quotes from the threads, but I will provide you with imaginary examples. THESE ARE NOT REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES! Chances are, the people I am using in the examples have not done this!

I am asking that this thread be left open for now, so that others may bring in more fallacies or add on/argue the current ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Circular Logic

This is easily one of, if not the, most common fallacy in religion. Circular logic is using a fact to explain itself. For Example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hera Ledro

But...a cell is a cell...It's the smallest form of life because it can't get any smaller than a cell!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angelus-Mortis

Circular logic, Hera. X cannot equal Y because it is X.

This is an example of circular logic. Basically what Angelus says here, X cannot equal Y because it is X. There must be proof and fact behind it, not just the existence. A more appropriate example would be:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedius Zanarukando

God exists! He exists because we believe he exists! If he didn't exist, how could we be here? Only he could make the world!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booger

That isn't true, Teddy. He doesn't exist because we exist. You might as well say that he exists because we exist! It's mopre likely, to be honest. There's no proof in what you said, you're just going in circles.

Hitting the 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hera Ledro

Well, perfection is a paradox. Everybody has different views and values, so what is good to one person might not be good to another. Perfection means flawless, and you can't be flawless in a world that is so heavily based on subjectivity. For example, God is suposed to be perfect. I heavily dislike YHWH, so that automatically makes him imperfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverFjell

But Hera, God isn't imperfect! Even if you don't like him, God is perfect. He's all-powerful, omni-potent, and omni-present! How more perfect can you get?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hera Ledro

Hitting the strawman again, I see. I'm not debating whether God is perfect; that is purely subjective. I'm talking about the paradox of perfection.

As you can see here, OFJ is knocking down my example instead of the argument. A better strategy would have been to place an alternate example that argued my main statement.

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. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booger

LOLZ OMG, I cant beleeve you just sed dat! ROFLMFAO! Lawl, seriouslt, dough, If the bible is so grate, why is god such an ass to people like the ejiptians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z

Rhea, please, get some grammar lessons before you come in here. I'm not even going to bother looking at that anymore. Learn to control your typo faerie...

Here, Z is not contributing anything to the Debate-at-hand. He's simply knocking down Booger's grammar (horrible as it was in the example) without arguing her point: if the Bible is such a holy and great book, why is its main character, YHWH, such an ass to people?

The Red Herring

Basically, going off-topic. A Red Herring is a statement that has the potential to derail the topic (often does), and contributes nothing to the argument. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hera Ledro

God, in the 'old days' demanded blood as a sacrifice, but why? Why blood? What are the special properties?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitsuki

Blood is a red herring, Jon. It's not about the properties, it's about the use.

Non-Sequitur

Thanks to Angelus for this fallacy. This is a fallacy that is denying logical syllogisms. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitsuki

Well, Bob is a Christian. Protestants are Christians. Therefore, Bob must be a Protestant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booger

Not necessarily, Suki. Just because we know that he is a Christian, that doesn't automatically denote him to be a Protestant. Protestants are Christians, but not all Christians are Protestants.

Here, Mitsuki overlooked the logic that there are other denominations of Christianity different from Protestantism. This is an example of non-sequitur.

Appeal to Authority

This is using authority figures to support your argument. Usually, this would be fine, unless you have no idea what it is these figures are really saying or doing with their evidence. Basically, you are taking an authority's views, and relating them to your own, without a single scrap or clue as to whether that argument really supports your own or not.

Cut-and-Paste

Once again, thanks go to Angelus. This is a fallacy in which you use someone's argument, but you don't really read it or understand it. Hence, you copy it and paste it, without really looking it over.

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.

Generalization

This is taking an argument and applying it to a larger population or sample than needed. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booger

Guys, the Catholic system is HORRIBLE! I mean, come on! Check out the priests, they molest little boys and girls for God's sake! I mean, after all that, I NEVER want to get in touch with a Catholic again, much less leave him with my kid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitsuki

Now now, Rhea, let's not generalize. Just because some of the priests do that doesn't mean all of them do.

I think the example speaks for itself. This won't discredit you, but it will withdraw reliability and validity from your argument.

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc

This is taking a situation and saying, without any evidence, that it happens because of a previous situation. For example, if I were to say "The sky is blue because it rained this morning," the syntax is sound: rain is conceived to be blue. However, logically, rain does not cause the sky to be blue, but rather chemicals in the atmosphere that reflect certain wavelengths of sunlight.

To paraphrase Wikipedia, post hoc is when A happens before B, and we assume that B happens because of A.

Appeal to Probablity

Just because something might happen, it doesn't mean that it WILL happen. This is the Appeal to Probability. If I were to assume that, because there is a 10% chance of me rolling a 10 on a 10-sided die I will inevitably roll a 10, that would be the Appeal to Probability. This is not logical, as probability in and of itself simply states the odds. Odds, by definition, are uncertainties, and so we cannot be certain that an uncertainty will happen.

I have more, but I am tired, and I must go to bed. I also want to let others have a crack at contributing

February 18, 2008, 7:25 AM

Its great seeing the fallacies, but didn't someone else already post this? Maybe that was a different forum.

And since its a debate forum, can I ask what you think the effect will be by raising awareness to these fallacies?

I, for one, am unusually slow! So noticing when I'm doing one of these would be hard enough, noticing when someone else is doing it would be even harder!

Also, maybe I'm not getting the 'strawman' fallacy but aside from debating the overall argument what else could someone debate other than the points themselves? If the points that make up the argument are corrected doesn't it stand to reason that the overall argument would change?

In the example you gave :

Argument : Perfection is a paradox

reasons : Definition of Perfection, Definition of the world, Definition of God

(I'd also like to point out that I think Circular logic was used to arrive at the perfection paradox conclusion, could be wrong of course)

Does the strawman suggest those who DON'T believe that can only say 'Perfection is not a paradox because ...'

Why is it wrong to say 'your definitions are incorrect'?

Is there any way you can write up a method for things that are acceptable and aren't fallacies?

February 18, 2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair_Game

Also, maybe I'm not getting the 'strawman' fallacy but aside from debating the overall argument what else could someone debate other than the points themselves? If the points that make up the argument are corrected doesn't it stand to reason that the overall argument would change?

In the example you gave :

Argument : Perfection is a paradox

reasons : Definition of Perfection, Definition of the world, Definition of God

Ah, you misinterpret the Strawman. The Strawman is taking someone's examples and purely arguing them instead of the thesis. Doing this contributes nothing to the argument. You may put out points about the examples, but you should always return to arguing the thesis. Otherwise, this will be left as 'hitting the strawman.'

Quote:

(I'd also like to point out that I think Circular logic was used to arrive at the perfection paradox conclusion, could be wrong of course)

No, it wasn't. I stated that perfection was a paradox, and then I gave the fact that perfection is subjective. I didn't say perfection was imperfect because it is perfection.

Quote:

Does the strawman suggest those who DON'T believe that can only say 'Perfection is not a paradox because ...'

Why is it wrong to say 'your definitions are incorrect'?

No, it doesn't. People who don't believe or do believe can bring up examples to argue the thesis, but arguing purely the examples and reasons is hitting the strawman. It's not wrong to say that their definitions are incorrect, but you have to be able to back it up with logical syllogisms and evidence.

Quote:

Is there any way you can write up a method for things that are acceptable and aren't fallacies?

I could, but I'd have to finish this first. I only dedicate myself to one project at a time

February 19, 2008, 4:36 AM

Answered all my questions, great stuff. AND I finally get the strawman thing! Only took me a few tries lol.

What about misinterpretation? Is that a fallacy?

You say the sun is big, someone else says the son isn't big. Something like that?

I see a lot of arguments that start like that, a simple misunderstanding that when A corrects B and spells out 's-u-n' B becomes defensive and argues that A never said that etc.

(not quite a formulated idea but I hope it makes SOME sense)

February 19, 2008, 6:48 PM

That's actually an example of sophistry, which is a trite play on words in order to derail the topic--it's a kind of red herring, I guess. For a really common example, some fundamentalists like to suggest that there is no evil because evil is a lack of goodness, or that there's no such thing as "cold", only a lack of heat, but this is an example of sophistry because the word "cold" is a quality, not a quantity, and it is used in a way of conveying quality, not quantity. You might not use the word "cold" to describe the exact temperature of something, but as a relative term to describe how one might feel, for example.

I think this thread looks familiar because I did something like this on another forum at ACF, but now that this is here, I'll mention another one--non sequitur. In Latin, it means "does not follow", and is used to describe fallacies that are committed when the person suggests something that does not follow logically. A common example of this is the violation of the concept of "implies"; ie, A --> B; if this is true, this does not mean that B--> A necessarily; that is, if B is true, and we know that A-->B, this does not say anything about the validity of A, but some people fallaciously suggest that it suggests A is true.

And here are two others: Appeal to Authority and the Cut & Paste argument. The first is the use of other authority figures or professionals to make your point stronger, even though you have absolutely no idea what they do or what they suggest and why, and the second is the use of other people's arguments by simply going to their website and literally "copying" and "pasting" their words into your argument without really reading it much or understanding it. In both cases, there's the dishonesty of not using your own arguments or understanding it, so they're fallacies.

By the way, if you're interested in learning more about the other fallacies, there are plenty of websites that have many examples and more details of each of them. They shouldn't be difficult to find.

February 19, 2008, 7:08 PM

Oooh, appeal of authority is actually quite laughable. There was a commercial where they used some actor from a show, (let's say ER - can't remember the exact show) and the actor was trying to advertise a prescription drug, saying something like "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on t.v"...not the exact quote as I don't quite remember, but you see the point. xD

And let's not forget Slippery Slope, where you're jumping into the extreme.

For example: George Bush doesn't like vanilla ice cream. As a result, he made his cabinet stop eating vanilla ice cream as well. Before we know it, the whole U.S will not be able to eat vanilla ice cream legally.

But my favorite one of all is probably hasty generalization.

Some people are actually quite capable of making a hasty generalization without knowing it, however.

February 19, 2008, 10:39 PM

Oooooooooohhhh! I got some good ones here

Thankee muchly, guys, I'll add it in to the original post

Now, for examples...

February 20, 2008, 3:54 AM

Wow, thats some great stuff! But how can I work at applying it to debating? My issue is I don't know when I'm doing it...Is it just something that comes with practice?

Perhaps we should have some practice debates where we're given a side to an argument to debate and then we research and debate...that way we could point out the fallacies.

Anyway, I'd be game for it.