Debate Fallacies

[Hera Ledro]

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:

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

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:

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!

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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:

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

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:

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

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:

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.

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

 

[Fair_Game]

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?

 

[Hera Ledro]

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.'

(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.

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.

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

 

[Fair_Game]

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)

 

[der Astronom]

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.

 

[Mitsuki]

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.

 

[Hera Ledro]

Oooooooooohhhh! I got some good ones here Thankee muchly, guys, I'll add it in to the original post

Now, for examples...

 

[Fair_Game]

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.

 

[der Astronom]

Sounds like a good idea. Although you could familiarize yourself with these fallacies by looking at more examples of them as well.

These fallacies are rather rational in nature; there are two ways of knowing how you made one--the most common one being that someone tells you you made one. They'll usually explain how you made the fallacy, and if their reasonings for it are sound, then you know you've made one, and should courteously accept that you made one and either find a new argument or try to improve the one you've already made. The other one is that you catch it yourself. It's rare because you're writing it, but it's easier to spot when you reread your argument again after you wait awhile. That's when you'll start noticing the things you might not have noticed when you wrote the post because you might not remember how or why you wrote certain things.

 

[Hera Ledro]

Agreed. That is an excellent idea, F_G. I'll start up a religious one and label it as a practice debate.

Another way to detect fallacies is to have someone else go over it. Not always an option, but easily better than looking it over yourself. Having an exterior point of view will do better than your own

 

[der Astronom]

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.

 

[Donald Trump]

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? ><

 

[Davey Gaga]

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.

 

[Hera Ledro]

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.

 

[Mitsuki]

-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

 

[Hera Ledro]

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

 

[der Astronom]

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

 

[Oerba Yun Fang]

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.

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.)

 

[Jonny]

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.

 

[der Astronom]

There's actually a good example of an ad hominem that happened rather recently (I won't mention names), but it's one of those things that seem counter-intuitive at first, and perhaps odd, but then it makes sense afterwards.

The example in question is when you make a claim about the bible, and then your opponent attempts to invalidate your argument on the basis that you have never read the bible before.

This is an ad hominem because you can still be right about your claim on the bible even though you haven't read it before. Evaluate the claim for what it is; not how the person came up with it.

For an even simpler way of seeing this, you may expect a criminal to be a liar, but it's entirely possible he will tell the truth. If you say his statements are invalid because he's a criminal, then that's an ad hominem.