PDA

View Full Version : List of fallacies


Gamma Male
June 3rd, 2014, 04:31 PM
I think it would be good to have a stickied thread in RotW with a list of all the most commonly used logical fallacies, what they are, and how they're used. It would be a great resource for people coming to RotW to sharpen their debating skills. I might be willing to write a lot of it, though of course it'd probably be better if a lot of the older generally more knowledgeable members and mods took charge. What do you thinl?

Harley Quinn
June 3rd, 2014, 04:32 PM
If you want to write something, you can feel free to do that. Then, we'd probably discuss it and see if it should be stickied and whatnot. I think it's personally a good idea to do.

Miserabilia
June 3rd, 2014, 04:33 PM
I think it would be a great idea as I used to make alot of fallacies (and still do hehe) myself and learened slowly through correction of others, having a list right here could be helpful.

CassnovA
June 3rd, 2014, 05:20 PM
whats is fallacies :( :/

Gamma Male
June 3rd, 2014, 06:15 PM
How's this?



You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds. -Robert A. Wilson


When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:

ad hominem/personal attacks: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. Also called "God of the gaps"

straw man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.

two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

no true Scotsman an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. Example:No real man would ever wear pink; therefore, it is impossible for men to wear pink)

shifting the burden of proof when one cannot prove his own claims, he shifts the burden of proof to his opponent and demands they disprove him(prove aliens don't exist!)

loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in evolution) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a prem (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirabl consequences. Example: some religious people belie that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.

bandwagon fallacy concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must pass laws against prostitution to prevent it from occurring!) But do laws against prostitution actually prevent prostitution from happening?

circular reasoning:stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of vodoo, the believer will notice the rituals that seem to cause something to occur while ignoring the majority of rituals which fail(which would indicate that voodoo rituals only work due to random chance or, when applied to health affects, the nocebo/ placebo effect)

confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make bette chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).

[B]

Lovelife090994
June 4th, 2014, 03:39 AM
Uuuuhhh.......


Do you object to anything on the list.

I only understood like a third of it. This would keep anyone not in debate club or oversees out of it since one pull of this would shut up anyone. This went over my head but then again I'm only 5'3". I do and don't get it. Overal: Neutral.

phuckphace
June 4th, 2014, 05:13 AM
don't forget reductio ad Hitlerum. "Nationalism is bad because Hitler was a nationalist" or "opposing immigration leads to Jews being put in ovens."

ksdnfkfr
June 4th, 2014, 05:37 AM
Thank you Donald, that gave me a lot of concise info to work with. have heard terms like straw man, but didn't quite get it. Speaking of Hitler, there's one I know called Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfeited the argument.

Vlerchan
June 4th, 2014, 12:28 PM
I'd include:

appeal to common practice: claiming something is true (for all) because it's commonly practised.

appeal to incredulity: because a claim sounds unbelievable, you claim it's untrue.

appeal to the majority: claiming that something is best because it's commonly practised.

appeal to novelty: supposing something is better because it's new or newer.

appeal to ridicule: presenting your opponents argument in a way that makes it seem absurd (i.e., belief in god is just like belief in the toothfairy!).

appeal to wishful thinking: claiming something is true because you strongly believe in it (i.e., Obama wouldn't lie, he's our leader and good American!).

appeal to spite: dismissing a claim by appealing to a personal bias against the claimant (i.e., don't you just hate when those damn liberal-socialist-atheists natter on about evolution?!).

argument by association: discrediting an argument on the basis of its association with a commonly-held bad.

Affirming the Consequent: Assuming there's only one explanation for the observation you are making (i.e., marraige often results in the birth of children, so that's the reason why it exists).

Anecdotal Evidence: Discounting evidence or research in favour of firsthand 'evidence'.

Genetic Fallacy: Attacking the cause or origin of a claim, rather than it's substance (i.e., of course liberals aren't going to say that Obama is American!)

However, I'd recommend structuring the list in a way so that the more important (commonly-used) ones are on top. Just to ensure that the people who start, get bored, and then stop, at least understand the worst offences.

Gamma Male
June 4th, 2014, 01:58 PM
Okay, I've put the more common ones at the top and added a couple. And yes, Argument from association with a Hitler example is in there phuckphace.



You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds. -Robert A. Wilson


When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies.

Just remember that this list is intended in no way as some formal rule book, but rather as a resource and guide to help people recognize errors in reasoning and sharpen their debating skills.

Ad Hominem/Personal Attacks: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Straw Man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.

Begging The Question: assuming the conclusion of an argument in the initial premise, often in an indirect way.(e.g., free speech is beneficial to the state and cannot be taken away because it is an unalienable right which we cannot live prosperously without)

Red Herring: When the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

Confusing Causation With Correlation: Assuming that because two things occured simultaneously one caused the other(e.g., Studies show that violent adults are more likely to have played violent videogames as children; therefore violent videogames cause violent behavior) But do they? Or are violent children just more likely to be drawn toward violent videogames?

Slippery Slope: Claiming that if something is allowed, it will lead to unrelated immoral behavior.(e.g., If we start allowing second cousins to marry, next thing you know horses will be marrying infants.)

No True Scotsman: An informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. (E.g., No real man would ever wear pink; therefore, it is impossible for men to wear pink; no true American would ever deface a flag, therefore Americans don't burn flags)

Argument From Association: Assuming an idea is invalid or immoral because of who has used or agreed with it in the past.(e.g., Hitler was a vegetarian and a mass murderer; therefore vegetarianism is bad)

Appeal To Ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) Appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

Two Wrongs Make A Right: Trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.

Argument From Omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

Observational Selection: (similar to confirmation bias): Pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

Statistics Of Small Numbers: Similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

Shifting The Burden Of Proof: When one cannot prove his own claims, he shifts the burden of proof to his opponent and demands they disprove him(e.g., Prove aliens don't exist!)

Loaded Questions: Embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

Appeal To Tradition: (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) Just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

Argument From Authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam): Using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in evolution) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

Excluded Middle: (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."

Appeal To Consequences: (argumentum ad consequentiam): An argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people belief that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.

Bandwagon Fallacy: Concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For exaple many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

Circular Reasoning: Stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

Confirmation Bias: (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of vodoo, the believer will notice the rituals that seem to cause something to occur while ignoring the rituals which fail(which would indicate that voodoo rituals only work due to random chance or, when applied to health affects the placebo/nocebo effect

Emerald Dream
June 4th, 2014, 02:25 PM
I appreciate the effort given here in your suggestion, but I am only for something like this as a "reference" or a "glossary of terms." Absolutely NOT as a "list of fallacies" or guidelines for debating. What you (or whatever source you may pull out to back this up) may consider a fallacy, there will always be others who disagree with it.

We pretty much have two main rules in RotW - stay on topic, and no personal attacks. Other than that I feel that people should be free to debate however they want. If they want to use "red herrings" or "slippery slope" or "bandwagon fallacy" then that is their option. Most people will see through it anyways. We don't need others to tell them that their style is "wrong" by pointing at a list. This isn't a professional debating forum, nor should it be.

Gamma Male
June 4th, 2014, 02:57 PM
I appreciate the effort given here in your suggestion, but I am only for something like this as a "reference" or a "glossary of terms." Absolutely NOT as a "list of fallacies" or guidelines for debating. What you (or whatever source you may pull out to back this up) may consider a fallacy, there will always be others who disagree with it.

We pretty much have two main rules in RotW - stay on topic, and no personal attacks. Other than that I feel that people should be free to debate however they want. If they want to use "red herrings" or "slippery slope" or "bandwagon fallacy" then that is their option. Most people will see through it anyways. We don't need others to tell them that their style is "wrong" by pointing at a list. This isn't a professional debating forum, nor should it be.

I meant this to be a resource and guide for people who are new to debating, not some formal rulebook. And no offence, but these aren't really just subjective opinions, they're logically incoherent fallacies. One might consider begging the question or creation of a straw man a valid debate tactic, but they'd be wrong. I understand your opposition but fail to see how the reasoning behind it is valid. I'd be grateful if you could elaborate.

Miserabilia
June 4th, 2014, 03:00 PM
I appreciate the effort given here in your suggestion, but I am only for something like this as a "reference" or a "glossary of terms." Absolutely NOT as a "list of fallacies" or guidelines for debating. What you (or whatever source you may pull out to back this up) may consider a fallacy, there will always be others who disagree with it.

We pretty much have two main rules in RotW - stay on topic, and no personal attacks. Other than that I feel that people should be free to debate however they want. If they want to use "red herrings" or "slippery slope" or "bandwagon fallacy" then that is their option. Most people will see through it anyways. We don't need others to tell them that their style is "wrong" by pointing at a list. This isn't a professional debating forum, nor should it be.

Though I can see where you are coming from I'd like to add that I'm thinking (Not sure I can't speak for gamma male) that this would be more of a list of tips; just things to avoid if you want a stronger argument, not a set of rules.
Also, this way, if someone points out a logical fallacy (which happens alot), they can point someone to the list, etc.
It would make sense because these aren't just views on debate but objective fallacies that can be pointed out, but don't have to be set as rules or whatever.

Gamma Male
June 4th, 2014, 03:05 PM
Though I can see where you are coming from I'd like to add that I'm thinking (Not sure I can't speak for gamma male) that this would be more of a list of tips; just things to avoid if you want a stronger argument, not a set of rules.
Also, this way, if someone points out a logical fallacy (which happens alot), they can point someone to the list, etc.
It would make sense because these aren't just views on debate but objective fallacies that can be pointed out, but don't have to be set as rules or whatever.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Emerald Dream
June 4th, 2014, 03:09 PM
I meant this to be a resource and guide for people who are new to debating, not some formal rulebook.

Maybe if it is labelled as a glossary of terms, but it comes off as "this shit is wrong, and anyone who uses these is an idiot" the way it's presented here.

And no offence, but these aren't really just subjective opinions, they're logically incoherent fallacies.

People are free to use them here, without others to point at a list and say "wrong." It appears that you are looking at something you can link over and over again to insist "I am right. You are wrong." Logically incoherent is a subjective term in itself. What is logical for you may not be for others.

One might consider begging the question or creation of a straw man a valid debate tactic, but they'd be wrong. I understand your opposition but fail to see how the reasoning behind it is valid. I'd be grateful if you could elaborate.

The point is we aren't going to have a list of how you may or may not argue/debate here. Like I said....two main rules - stay on topic, no personal attacks. Once again, this is not a professional debate forum. This is a teen help and advice website. This is just begging for others to harass members about their "debate style" (sort of a non-staff way of moderation, complete with a reference to excuse it) instead of debating the actual points in the threads.

Vlerchan
June 4th, 2014, 03:22 PM
Would you still be so opposed if gamma was to header the thread 'arguments to be avoided' as opposed to 'logical fallacies'? I personally don't see the problem in stating that these arguments don't logically follow - objectively, because logic is objective - but I do appreciate the argument that inferring the idea that 'your automatically wrong if you use this formation' - though, I personally wouldn't accept an argument that contained any of the aforementioned - would be counter-productive, and might in fact be used to harass, etc. other members.

Emerald Dream
June 4th, 2014, 03:29 PM
Would you still be so opposed if gamma was to header the thread 'arguments to be avoided' as opposed to 'logical fallacies'? I personally don't see the problem in stating that these arguments don't logically follow - objectively, because logic is objective - but I do appreciate the argument that inferring the idea that 'your automatically wrong if you use this formation' - though, I personally wouldn't accept an argument that contained any of the aforementioned - would be counter-productive, and might in fact be used to harass, etc. other members.

This is exactly why I am opposed to it. A list like this (which is labelled as "fallacies") is certain to be used as a reference to point fingers and immediately link the terms. Heaven forbid anything like this even be considered as a stickied thread at anytime in the future. We are talking about people from ages 13-19 for the most part here. Of course they are going to use some of these things that are on the list.

The idea that any member here may create something telling others how to or how not to debate is just...well, ridiculous. People can debate here however they want.

Vlerchan
June 4th, 2014, 03:32 PM
Okay. I understand that.

I'm asking: if gamma labelled the thread 'arguments to be avoided' as opposed to 'logical fallacies', then would that be more acceptable?

Emerald Dream
June 4th, 2014, 03:35 PM
Okay. I understand that.

I'm asking: if gamma labelled the thread 'arguments to be avoided' as opposed to 'logical fallacies', then would that be more acceptable?

It would be more acceptable. However, let's be real. It would still be used as a reference to harass others. People who are not as experienced in debating would probably be intimidated if this was constantly being thrown at them...which, it will.

phuckphace
June 4th, 2014, 10:09 PM
I hadn't thought about it that way but I agree with Allison. it's not the end of the world if someone is wrong on the Internet.

re: the list itself being subjective, that's also a good point. for example I've seen "correlation does not imply causation" invoked fallaciously by people who don't want to accept clear examples of direct causes because it wouldn't fit in their flawed argument. not necessarily on VT, mind you, but still. I can see how this would end badly.

ImCoolBeans
June 6th, 2014, 11:10 AM
I don't think it was intended to be implemented as strict rules of debating for our board... I could be wrong, but I took this in as a reference to improve your debating skills with. Like Donald said, they aren't subjective opinions, they are logically incoherent fallacies. They go against logic, and that is an accepted fact. I imagine any philosophy class would talk about that (both that I have taken have).

Lovelife090994
June 6th, 2014, 02:29 PM
It would be more acceptable. However, let's be real. It would still be used as a reference to harass others. People who are not as experienced in debating would probably be intimidated if this was constantly being thrown at them...which, it will.

Bingo!

flappybird
June 7th, 2014, 10:59 AM
Naah, not a good idea.

And no offence, but these aren't really just subjective opinions, they're logically incoherent fallacies.

There you go. Logical fallacies are logical fallacies. They are not subjective. As Allison said, this is not a professional debating website but a Teen Support forum. Therefore, if someone puts a logical fallacious argument, it can be pointed out and be agreed on, without dissent as being logically fallacious and needn't require an entire list of logically fallacious arguments to be used to recognise it being fallacious.

I understand that the OP is enthusiastic about debating, but putting up such a list here is going too far on a website that is not intended for debate. Arguments can and do arise on any such forum, that doesn't mean that such "logical laws" must be put up.

And what if a logical fallacy happens to be missing? Can the person who makes the fallacious argument claim to be correct because the list doesn't have it as being fallacious?

Very impractical.

IAMWILL
June 7th, 2014, 12:00 PM
I support this idea. I think it would help people to improve the structure of their arguments and see where they/another person may be going wrong. If only RotW had more cooperative and less argumentative debates...

Also, earlier someone said something along the lines of "people might not agree with your logical fallacies." The whole idea of logical fallacies is that they are fact. There not something that can be agreed/disagreed upon.

flappybird
June 7th, 2014, 12:36 PM
I support this idea. I think it would help people to improve the structure of their arguments and see where they/another person may be going wrong. If only RotW had more cooperative and less argumentative debates...

Also, earlier someone said something along the lines of "people might not agree with your logical fallacies." The whole idea of logical fallacies is that they are fact. There not something that can be agreed/disagreed upon.

Please explain to me the purpose of this list. How would it be productive?

Camazotz
June 7th, 2014, 01:49 PM
Please explain to me the purpose of this list. How would it be productive?

If everyone were to read the list and learn about logical fallacies, they can identify fallacies in their own arguments and try to use rational arguments to support their side.

IAMWILL
June 7th, 2014, 02:29 PM
Please explain to me the purpose of this list. How would it be productive?

Well, along with what Camazotz said, let me quote myself:

"I think it would help people to improve the structure of their arguments and see where they/another person may be going wrong."

If people read and understand the list/guide, they hopefully will be able to improve the quality of their arguments.

flappybird
June 8th, 2014, 12:39 AM
If everyone were to read the list and learn about logical fallacies, they can identify fallacies in their own arguments and try to use rational arguments to support their side.

Well, along with what Camazotz said, let me quote myself:

"I think it would help people to improve the structure of their arguments and see where they/another person may be going wrong."

If people read and understand the list/guide, they hopefully will be able to improve the quality of their arguments.

Alright, let us suppose someone makes a false argument. How will the list come into play?

IAMWILL
June 8th, 2014, 02:53 AM
Alright, let us suppose someone makes a false argument. How will the list come into play?

Person A: *states argument*

Person B: I noticed that here you made an argument that according to this sticky (listoflogicalfallacies) is a logical fallacy. As a result, I cannot accept that conclusion as valid or sound.

Person A: "Well it looks like your right, let me try and restate that."


What's the problem here?

flappybird
June 8th, 2014, 03:01 AM
Person A: *states argument*

Person B: I noticed that you made an argument that according to [noparse]this sticky (listoflogicalfallacies) is a logical fallacy. As a result, I cannot accept that conclusion as valid or sound.

Person A: "Well it looks like your right, let me try and restate that."


What's the problem here?

Instead of Person B searching through a long list of logical fallacies to point out the fallacy of person A, or leaving it to person A to search through the list and find the fallacy that corresponds to their statement; they could, in the post, point out to the person how they are fallacious. I don't see the need of a list for that. I don't think people post fallacious arguments frequent enough for the list to be of any use.

IAMWILL
June 8th, 2014, 09:38 AM
Instead of Person B searching through a long list of logical fallacies to point out the fallacy of person A, or leaving it to person A to search through the list and find the fallacy that corresponds to their statement; they could, in the post, point out to the person how they are fallacious. I don't see the need of a list for that.

Opening a duplicate tab, going to the supposed sticky and identifying a fallacy would take all in all a few minutes at most, that doesn't seem like a very arduous task. Also, if Person A is called out by Person B, Person A is definitely going to want to see some type of source or confirmation of how their argument is illogical, hence where the list comes in. Without the list, every time someone called another person's argument as being "illogical" or "committing a fallacy" there would just be a shitstorm back and forth debating the logical merit of the argument. With the list, both persons can see who is right/wrong, and continue on with the actual original argument. The list almost acts as a moderator in debates.

I don't think people post fallacious arguments frequent enough for the list to be of any use.

You must have not spent a lot of time in RotW. That place is full of fallacious arguments.

Lovelife090994
June 8th, 2014, 10:33 AM
Opening a duplicate tab, going to the supposed sticky and identifying a fallacy would take all in all a few minutes at most, that doesn't seem like a very arduous task. Also, if Person A is called out by Person B, Person A is definitely going to want to see some type of source or confirmation of how their argument is illogical, hence where the list comes in. Without the list, every time someone called another person's argument as being "illogical" or "committing a fallacy" there would just be a shitstorm back and forth debating the logical merit of the argument. With the list, both persons can see who is right/wrong, and continue on with the actual original argument. The list almost acts as a moderator in debates.



You must have not spent a lot of time in RotW. That place is full of fallacious arguments.

You do know that this is a teen support site and not a professional debate site right? Clarity or not, this is not a site where everyone has to be professional. Also, I doubt Person A will back off that sweetly.

Typhlosion
June 8th, 2014, 10:50 AM
You do know that this is a teen support site and not a professional debate site right? Clarity or not, this is not a site where everyone has to be professional. Also, I doubt Person A will back off that sweetly.The list of fallacies aren't meant to be strict guidelines to be followed, rather some advice on things you should avoid. No one is making you follow these guidelines, as well as these (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=23512).

This is a forum centred on teen help, truly, but now that we have a debate section, couldn't we help/guide them on better debates as well?

StoppingTime
June 8th, 2014, 11:14 AM
While I like the idea of this post, I would rather it not turn debates into something like this:

I hold this belief because of X reasons on this topic

Ha! Well, that's absurd because as it says in the guidelines, that argument automatically makes your point false. Therefore I'm not going to even address you until you learn how to debate.

I feel like it would end up with people might end up arguing over guidelines more so than actual discussion around a specific topic. While I don't expect it to happen often, I'd just like to be sure that endlessly linking to this thread to prove your point doesn't happen.

flappybird
June 8th, 2014, 11:43 AM
The list of fallacies aren't meant to be strict guidelines to be followed, rather some advice on things you should avoid. No one is making you follow these guidelines, as well as these (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=23512).

This is a forum centred on teen help, truly, but now that we have a debate section, couldn't we help/guide them on better debates as well?


The post which you linked can be read once, be understood and be applied; while reading through such a long list of logical fallacies isn't the same as reading some guidelines or tips. Nobody would remember it.


Opening a duplicate tab, going to the supposed sticky and identifying a fallacy would take all in all a few minutes at most, that doesn't seem like a very arduous task. Also, if Person A is called out by Person B, Person A is definitely going to want to see some type of source or confirmation of how their argument is illogical, hence where the list comes in. Without the list, every time someone called another person's argument as being "illogical" or "committing a fallacy" there would just be a shitstorm back and forth debating the logical merit of the argument. With the list, both persons can see who is right/wrong, and continue on with the actual original argument. The list almost acts as a moderator in debates.



You must have not spent a lot of time in RotW. That place is full of fallacious arguments.

As someone said, Person A would not simply back off.

None of the logical fallacies require one to be a genius to identify and understand. Therefore, if dissent arises when a logical fallacy is simply being pointed out, it is unlikely that the person who has committed the fallacy when being shown the fallacy to be present on the list, would not argue with the validity of the fallacy on the list itself and abide to it as being a law. Dissent would arise in both cases.

Typhlosion
June 8th, 2014, 12:14 PM
The post which you linked can be read once, be understood and be applied; while reading through such a long list of logical fallacies isn't the same as reading some guidelines or tips. Nobody would remember it. Logical fallacy! You claim omniscience on "Nobody would remember it." :teehee: I did.

I must have read the linked thread twice yet I have barely any clue on what it says. However, I can identify most of these fallacies by heart.

If (QUOTE)None of the logical fallacies require one to be a genius to identify and understand(/QUOTE), the same logic could be applied to this thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=23512), which has been stickied. Skimming it it seems like "don't be a dick, don't be hypocritical, have your arguments well thought out and researched."

As someone said, Person A would not simply back off. One thing is offering an opportunity, another is one's behavior while debating with others. If they wanted to act like so, they might as wll already have had a list ready with them.

Therefore, if dissent arises when a logical fallacy is simply being pointed out, it is unlikely that the person who has committed the fallacy when being shown the fallacy to be present on the list, would not argue with the validity of the fallacy on the list itself and abide to it as being a law. Dissent would arise in both cases.If you're arguing against a logical fallacy you probably lost your point anyways.

Gamma Male
June 8th, 2014, 12:51 PM
CoolBeans has offered me a chance to rewrite the tips and techniques thread and include the list at the bottom as a sort of glossary of common debate terms. Would this be more acceptable?



And to those who say that this is just a support and advice website, well, why do we even have a debate section at all then? This isn't just a support and advice website. It's a community. And while support and advice is a big part of this community, nowadays debating is too. So unless you want to remove RotW, I see no reason why we cannot offer support and advice to new debaters by telling them why certain logical errors should be avoided.

DerBear
June 9th, 2014, 07:54 PM
Person A: *states argument*

Person B: I noticed that you made an argument that according to [noparse]this sticky (listoflogicalfallacies) is a logical fallacy. As a result, I cannot accept that conclusion as valid or sound.

Person A: "Well it looks like your right, let me try and restate that."


What's the problem here?

You're aware this is Virtual Teen right? I think most people would defend their point view until the death and would cut out their left testicle, put it in a blender and serve it on toast rather than admit someone else is actually right, whether it be about the debate method used or the actual argument itself.

I've never given my opinion on the actual topic at hand so I will give my opinion. I'd say I have to agree with Alison. You'd have some jumped up person going around telling someone the way they stated their argument was unsound. I believe the ROTW is a relaxed debate platform, I don't believe it is a place for serious hardcore debate.

When I joined VT I took ROTW seriously and soon learnt its best to take ROTW with a light hearted approach.

I think this would be used to harass people like Ali said and would put a lot of people off from entering the section. If I read the suggested sticky three years ago when I was a new member on a large forum, I'd be put off from ever entering because I'm not a debating expert. Even though my education and what I've chosen surrounds a lot of debate and I can present myself well in a debate I believe I could fall into one of those terms described in the suggested sticky and therefore I'd be put off.

IAMWILL
June 9th, 2014, 10:12 PM
You do know that this is a teen support site and not a professional debate site right? Clarity or not, this is not a site where everyone has to be professional. Also, I doubt Person A will back off that sweetly.

You're aware this is Virtual Teen right? I think most people would defend their point view until the death and would cut out their left testicle, put it in a blender and serve it on toast rather than admit someone else is actually right, whether it be about the debate method used or the actual argument itself.

I've never given my opinion on the actual topic at hand so I will give my opinion. I'd say I have to agree with Alison. You'd have some jumped up person going around telling someone the way they stated their argument was unsound. I believe the ROTW is a relaxed debate platform, I don't believe it is a place for serious hardcore debate.

When I joined VT I took ROTW seriously and soon learnt its best to take ROTW with a light hearted approach.

I think this would be used to harass people like Ali said and would put a lot of people off from entering the section. If I read the suggested sticky three years ago when I was a new member on a large forum, I'd be put off from ever entering because I'm not a debating expert. Even though my education and what I've chosen surrounds a lot of debate and I can present myself well in a debate I believe I could fall into one of those terms described in the suggested sticky and therefore I'd be put off.

Wow you know, up until this point I actually had no idea what this site was or how it works! I never noticed that over the last 5 and a half years! Learn something new everyday!

With all jokes aside I'm very aware of how RotW arguments usually work and I agree with you that this could be used as a tool that could and will for some time be abused. Unless RotW is removed entirely though, I think we should do what we can to transform the section into an area with cooperative debates rather than the repeated, one-sided argumentative debates there are today. I believe this guide would be a step in that direction.

Whether or not the staff share my vision of a better RotW or believe it is possible to change is a different topic, but for the record I think it is possible in time. I'd love if the section was just removed entirely for a bit, trying to explain any point thats counter to the majority in that section is like trying to fight off thousands of insects with your hands tied behind your back (which is why I stay out of there.) If that isn't going to happen though I think it is best to try and educate as many users as we can on how to debate respectively and cooperatively, and again I think this guide is a good step in that direction.

Vlerchan
June 10th, 2014, 01:44 PM
I literally have zero problem with the current tone in ROTW. I've also had no problem putting across viewpoints opposed to the majority. I don't believe the subforum needs to change in order to create a setting more billed for constructive discussion about complicated ideas than debate - if people want then they can create topics which specify that everyone needs to agree (or whatever - I'm sure it can be phrased better than that) but I don't believe that we should turn the subforum on its head and force people who enjoy the current atmosphere into such discussion. I actually can't imagine anything I'd be more against than the above.

In a bid to stay on-topic I'll add that I'm still unsure about the opposition to Gamma's list: users already regularly reference fallacies in debate - I've answered many a post with a link to 'Wiki: Logical Fallacies'. I understand that this might be seen to formalise the Logical Fallacies as part of the ROTW rules but I believe it will do more harm than good: it will better allow newer users to structure their arguments and so lead to a more beneficial experience for all of us.