Logical Fallacies of Debate: Let's get Facepunch arguing correctly. - General

Good morning! As I'm writing this, I've just read a large argument in which the arguer's main point was [b]completely invalidated[/b] by his use of logical fallacies! Due to this, I have decided to write this little guide to logical fallacies that you can use to either beat people in arguments or simply be that guy that points out everyone's fallacies. First, as in any true argument, let use define our terms. For this conversation, an "argument" is any debate. It is not a heated frenzy of angry words necessarily. A fallacy is a mistake one has made in an argument. It is generally when they try to validate something based on something else, yet there is no real connection. There are three types of fallacies used in arguments. They are the Fallacies of [b]Distraction[/b], [b]Ambiguity[/b] and [b]Form[/b]. There are eight fallacies of distraction. The first is called [b][i]Ipse Dixit[/i][/b] which translates (rather roughly) into English as, "He has said it himself." This is a fallacy used when someone implies that any one person who is of a position of authority that is not relevant to the argument is suddenly relevant to the argument. Ipse Dixit: "Carl Segan says Darth Vader is good. Darth Vader must be good." NOT Ipse Dixit: "Gabe Newell said that he will make Half-Life 3. He clearly will make Half-Life 3." The second fallacy of distraction is [b]ad populum[/b]. This fallacy is an appeal "to the masses." That is, it is the allegation that what the mass thinks is fact. Ad populum: "This book is clearly good, it's a best seller." Not ad populum: "I think you'll like this book, it's been critically acclaimed." Thirdly, we have [b]Ad baculum[/b]. Ad Baculum is a thinly veiled threat at what may happen should the person they are arguing with does not agree with them. Ad baculum: "You should pay to stop AIDS. You don't want AIDS, do you?" Not ad baculum: "Don't kill that man or you will be put to death." Fourth, [b]ad hominem[/b]. Most people are familiar with this term. It is the claim that one person is clearly wrong because of a certain aspect of them (that is not relevant to the conversation.) Ad hominem: "You're gay, how can we believe you when you say that we shouldn't kill people en masse!?" Not ad hominem: "You're a murderer! Why should we believe that you won't kill us?" Fifth, [b]Bulverism[/b]. Bulverism is the claim that any one argument is wrong based on how that person came to believe it. Bulverism: "You just think we shouldn't read books because books killed your family and raped your mother." Not Bulverism: "You are just trying to run as a republican because you lost as a democrat yesterday!" Sixth, we have [b]Tu quoque[/b]. Tu Quoque is committed when a person claims that an argument for or against an action is incorrect because the person arguing does it as well. This is [b]only[/b] committed when the action is a moral or ethical dilemma. Tu quoque: "Why shouldn't we kill people? You do too!" Not Tu quoque: "Why shouldn't I read? So do you!" Seventh, we have [b]Ad ignorantiam[/b]. Ad ignorantiam is a claim that since there is no evidence to disprove something, we therefore must accept it as fact. Ad ignorantiam: "UFOs exist, you can't disprove them!" Not ad ignorantiam: "This man is not guilty, you can't prove it!" Finally, we have [b]Chronological Snobbery[/b]. Chronological Snobbery is committed when someone claims that something is either true or false or good or bad based on its age. This is not committed when one merely takes into account its age. Chronological Snobbery: "You can't throw this out, it's old!" Not chronological snobbery: "Maybe we should think before we throw this old tradition away. Maybe it has a point." That's it for the fallacies of distraction. Let us move on to the fallacies of ambiguity. There are five, and they have to do with ambiguous terms or statements. The first is called [b]equivocation[/b]. Equivocation is the changing of a definition mid-argument. Terms and definitions MUST be consistent throughout the ENTIRE argument, or it is automatically invalid. Equivocation: "Since all men are mortal, and no women are men, we must conclude that no women are mortal!" The changed term is "men." In the first statement (all men are mortal), the term "men" meant "human". It then changed to "male." Secondly we have the fallacy of [b]accent[/b]. This is when an emphasis on a word or statement makes the statement different from what the speaker intended. This is only a fallacy when the speaker intended the statement to mean something else and its meaning was disguised through emphasis. Two examples of Accent: "We should not [i]kill[/i] this man." "[i]We[/i] should not kill this man." Thirdly, we have [b]Amphibole[/b]. Amphibole is a fallacy often made in newspapers. It is committed when the grammar of a statement causes it to be viewed differently. Amphibole: "Goldfish Biting in Pond!" Fourth, the fallacy of [b]Composition[/b]. This is committed that what is true of all the parts is true of the whole. Composition: "Cats are cute, and mice are cute, so if we spliced them, the result will be cute!" (not necessarily.) Fifth, the fallacy of [b]Division[/b]. This is the opposite of Composition; it is the assumption that what is true of the whole must be true of its parts. Division: "This splicing of cat and mouse is ugly! Cats and mice must be ugly!" That's it for the fallacies of Ambiguity. Let us move onto the fallacies of Form. There are five of these as well. Fallacies of form are arguments in which the structure of the arguments invalidates them. [b]Circular Reasoning[/b] is the first fallacy of form. It is when someone has made their conclusion in their premise (a statement supporting the conclusion.) Circular Reasoning: "She loves me, because she told me. And she wouldn't lie to me because she loves me!" Secondly, we have [b]post hoc ergo propter hoc[/b] or simply post hoc. It is committed when somebody assumes that if they do X, and Y happens afterwards, then X caused Y. Post Boc: "I said 'hello' and five seconds later a man died in china! Saying 'hello' must kill people!" Thirdly, we have [b]either/or[/b]. It is when somebody assumes that from one statement, there must be two reasons. Either/or: "You like cheetos? You're either stupid or fat!" Fourth is the [b]complex question[/b]. This is when a question does not present somebody with every answer, and each answer that is "allowed" is incorrect. The complex question: "So when are you going to stop murdering people?" To say "never" would imply you will murder forever, and to say "right now" would imply that you had done it before. Fifth and finally, we have [b]Apriorism[/b]. It is the generalization of an entire group based on one or a few examples. Apriorism: "I saw a purple squirrel. All squirrels must be purple!" Not apriorism: "I saw every squirrel in the world, and saw each was purple. All squirrels must be purple!" That is it for the fallacies of debate. I hope that this will allow you to argue with more finesse and critical thinking than before. [b]Note:[/b] an argument is only invalidated by a fallacy if the argument rests entirely upon the fallacy. If someone were to say "Carl Segan said that squirrels are purple. I have also seen every squirrel and confirm this." This person has committed Ipse Dixit, however they have still validated their argument by the following statement. [b]Note 2:[/b] when invalidating an enemy argument, always remember that these deal with [b]validity[/b] and not [b]soundness[/b]. Validity is when the conclusion follows from the statements; Soundness is when the conclusion and statements are true. A [b]valid[/b] argument: All cows are red things. All red things are evil things. Therefore, all cows are evil things. This person has committed NO FALLACIES. Whether or not cows are red does not matter; however, we can clearly see that IF cows are red and IF red things are evil, cows HAVE to be evil. Validity has NOTHING to do with truth and falsity. A [b]sound[/b] statement: Some people are likers of books. Some likers of books are good people. Therefore, some people are good people. These are ALL true, but not VALID. They have broken a rule of syllogisms(not covered here) and therefore their argument is invalid. It does NOT follow that since SOME X are Y, and SOME Y are Z, then SOME X are Z! We have no idea if ANY X are Z at all from this argument! So it's INVALID. However, we can see that the conclusion is true, and so are all the other statements! It is therefore SOUND. When dealing with arguments, first look at validity, and THEN look at soundness.

Am I a good people?

Informative guide. Maybe people in ITN will stop arguing like retards

Whoa, my Junior year American literature notes [editline]f[/editline] Anyone with a high school level of education should have already learned this stuff [editline]f[/editline] If you disagree with me, you're either stupid or [i]fat[/i]

But I love my red things

You make logical fallacies as everybody else so your argument is incorrect. How did i do?.

That sounds like something Hitler would say

Experienced trolls make good use of these.

[QUOTE=Glitch360;28491462]That sounds like something Hitler would say[/QUOTE] you're begging the question

[QUOTE=Conro101;28491479]you're begging the question[/QUOTE]what are your parameters

thank you geel9, 14-year-old master of fallacies.

[QUOTE=deloc;28491497]thank you geel9, 14-year-old master of fallacies.[/QUOTE] No he isn't.

The wierdest fallacy I've ever seen was: "There is a small company. This company ONLY sell food. This company produces plastic containers for food. We assume plastic containers for food is actually, food."

[QUOTE=EXoDUSFLT;28491523]No he isn't.[/QUOTE] yes he is.

[QUOTE=deloc;28491570]yes he is.[/QUOTE] You're begging the question.

One thing you should never do in an argument is insult the other side. I'm sick and tired of people resulting to swearing and name-calling because they can't think of anything else to say. Example: Person1 "I do not like our president because he spends too much money" Person2 "<insert absurd off-topic insult here>"

12 year olds will never learn how to argue :v:

I see the word "fallacy" as "phallus-e", so this thread is clearly about cock robots.

[QUOTE=not_Morph53;28491686]I see the word "fallacy" as "phallus-e", so this thread is clearly about cock robots.[/QUOTE] let me insert my usb stick into you and transfer some data.

[QUOTE=deloc;28491694]let me insert my usb stick into you and transfer some data.[/QUOTE] No stgn, you'll give me a virus.

[QUOTE=not_Morph53;28491724]No stgn, you'll give me a virus.[/QUOTE] There's always CondAV

[QUOTE=WastedJamacan;28491621]You're begging the question.[/QUOTE] You're being defensive.

[QUOTE=Anteep2;28491748]You're being defensive.[/QUOTE] That sounds like something Hitler would say.

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;28491737]There's always CondAV[/QUOTE] There are known compatibility issues with my old CatholicOS box.

[QUOTE=WastedJamacan;28491756]That sounds like something Hitler would say.[/QUOTE] What are your parameters call me late but i've run out of things to say

[QUOTE=not_Morph53;28491758]There are known compatibility issues with my old CatholicOS box.[/QUOTE] Guess you should be upgrading to something more powerful, like SatanOS [QUOTE=Anteep2;28491777]What are your parameters[/QUOTE] function johnny.Flame.Summon(topic OP):array of string[];

I thought it was post hoc ergo propter hoc.

isnt a baculum the bone in a walrus dick?

[QUOTE=The Mighty Boatman;28491874]isnt a baculum the bone in a walrus dick?[/QUOTE] I remember my biology teacher talking about this. And let's make a LOGICAL FALLACY USING THIS A baculum is present in mammal's penises A male human does not have this bone therefore, male humans are not mammals.

A good effort, but most of facepunch's 12 year olds will need more time for their brains to develop and mature before they learn how to argue properly.