Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate...

Author	Message
j mercer Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 2422 Credit: 12,323,733 RAC: 1	Message 1824249 - Posted: 14 Oct 2016, 18:05:44 UTC And now it is time for Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate... http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html Introduction This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones. Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset. Instead, debaters have to bring together various facts, insights, and values that others share or can be persuaded to accept, and then show that those ideas lead more or less plausibly to a conclusion. Logic is a useful tool in this process, but it is not the only tool -- after all, "plausibility" is a fairly subjective matter that does not follow strict logical rules. Ultimately, the judge in a debate round has to decide which side's position is more plausible in light of the arguments given -- and the judge is required to pick one of those sides, even if logic alone dictates that "we do not know" is the answer to the question at hand. Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. If you think a fallacious argument can slide by and persuade the judge to vote for you, you're going to make it, right? The trick is not getting caught. Introduction â€¢ So why learn logical fallacies at all? â€¢ Logic as a form of rhetoric â€¢ Committing your very own logical fallacies â€¢ The list of fallacies: â—¦ argumentum ad antiquitatem â—¦ argumentum ad hominem â—¦ argumentum ad ignorantiam â—¦ argumentum ad logicam â—¦ argumentum ad misericordiam â—¦ argumentum ad nauseam â—¦ argumentum ad numerum â—¦ argumentum ad populum â—¦ argumentum ad verecundiam â—¦ circulus in demonstrando â—¦ complex question â—¦ dicto simpliciter â—¦ naturalistic fallacy â—¦ nature, appeal to â—¦ non sequitur â—¦ petitio principii â—¦ post hoc ergo propter hoc â—¦ red herring â—¦ slippery slope â—¦ straw man â—¦ tu quoque ... ... ID: 1824249 ·

JumpinJohnny Send message Joined: 27 Mar 13 Posts: 678 Credit: 962,093 RAC: 0	Message 1824259 - Posted: 14 Oct 2016, 18:32:28 UTC - in response to Message 1824251. Been there, done that. Art of debate? How about "immoral debate tactics?" Are you going to be the logical fallacy police in here now? I'm curious to see what your results will be. I'm going to guess it'll be the same as my results. What results? What are you going on about? Give it a read. It is just a short paper / guide to debate tactics and methodology. It has NOTHING to do with morality. Nothing was said about policing. Nobody suggested that there were going to be judgements. Go on now. Give it a good look see. It may even enlighten you to examine your own tactics and how to better use them... if you were to be bothered to read and study up on the paper. Perhaps you may even be able to correctly identify other's debate tactics used against you. That would be helpful, would it not? ID: 1824259 ·

j mercer Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 2422 Credit: 12,323,733 RAC: 1	Message 1824296 - Posted: 14 Oct 2016, 21:36:31 UTC - in response to Message 1824251. Been there, done that. Art of debate? How about "immoral debate tactics?" Are you going to be the logical fallacy police in here now? I'm curious to see what your results will be. I'm going to guess it'll be the same as my results. Sure here you go. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=80395#1824295 No; we got you for that. I doubt it. ... ... ID: 1824296 ·

Sarge Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79	Message 1824332 - Posted: 14 Oct 2016, 23:18:48 UTC - in response to Message 1824259. Been there, done that. Art of debate? How about "immoral debate tactics?" Are you going to be the logical fallacy police in here now? I'm curious to see what your results will be. I'm going to guess it'll be the same as my results. What results? What are you going on about? Give it a read. It is just a short paper / guide to debate tactics and methodology. It has NOTHING to do with morality. Nothing was said about policing. Nobody suggested that there were going to be judgements. Go on now. Give it a good look see. It may even enlighten you to examine your own tactics and how to better use them... if you were to be bothered to read and study up on the paper. Perhaps you may even be able to correctly identify other's debate tactics used against you. That would be helpful, would it not? Didn't you knoe, it's all Saul? ALl Saul Alinsky's fault? Batman robbing Robin, Peter robbing Sarge to pay Paul. Sarge keeping it light. Guy (socialism kills) last name omitted, call calling me an Alinsky acolyte. :) NOT! Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. ID: 1824332 ·

©2024 University of California

SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.