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

[QUOTE=Janizaurd;28495027]The funny thing is this summarizes the entire 'debate' of religion/existance of god.[/QUOTE] While I am a Christian, I entirely believe that there is no logical reason to believe in God aside from induction.

we already know how to win any arguments using 5 phrases and the name hitler

I can now become a master debater. Thank you, OP.

[QUOTE=geel9;28495024]Your entire argument is based on the fact that I was saying that some good people are people. I was saying some people are good people. Learn the definition of a distributed term.[/QUOTE] No, I was using your thing about some people being good people. Since "people" is included in the term "good people", I assume that these "good people" must be people (that is, if they exist). We know they exist because some people like books (so book likers exist) and some book likers are good people (so good people exist). That means some people [i]have[/i] to be good people. You weren't using a correct example. Also you are making assumptions about my position.

I think too many people here are trying to point out fallacies by using fancy phrases, "Ad hominem" being the only one they know, at least Carl Segan said that so it's pretty much correct. Interesting thread!

[QUOTE=Swebonny;28495249]I think too many people here are trying to point out fallacies by using fancy phrases, "Ad hominem" being the only one they know, at least Carl Segan said that so it's pretty much correct. Interesting thread![/QUOTE] Are you referring to me?

[QUOTE=geel9;28495267]Are you referring to me?[/QUOTE] You're a programmer, you wouldn't know anything about it anyway. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] *wink* (no I'm not referring to you, but the many occasions it happens in the News section)

[QUOTE=Pepin;28493561]Never mind with what I just said as the OP later pointed it out. I really hate semantics. I also hate arguments that rely of the fact that "they were born that way" because it implies that it would be alright to be hateful towards that group if they weren't born that way.[/QUOTE] That's one of the main arguments gays use, and really it doesn't help them at all because of that implication. Besides, at any minute anyone could decide to start having sex with the gender they didn't do it with before. They can't prove that all gays are born gay, yet they claim it's 100% true in every homophobia argument that pops up.

[QUOTE=geel9;28493841]Let me explain how distributed terms work. A term is "distributed" when it refers to ALL MEMBERS of its class. I'll highlight the distributed terms for you here. All [b]socrates[/b] is a man. No [b]men[/b] are [b]mortals[/b] Therefore, no [b]socrates[/b] is a [b]mortal[/b]. In a particular statement (that is, a statement with the form "some" or "some...not"), no terms are distributed. Here's a venn diagram. [img_thumb]http://foxprods.net/experimentalists/Syllogism.png[/img_thumb] See? The logical, rules-based reason this is invalid is because it breaks a rule of syllogisms: In at least one premise(supporting statement), the middle term(the only term that is in both premises) MUST be distributed(and it is not!) [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] I should write another topic on the fallacies of Syllogisms and whatnot...hmm.[/QUOTE] According to your diagram good people aren't people...

[QUOTE=conman420;28495674]According to your diagram good people aren't people...[/QUOTE] They are GOOD people not just people Obviously.

[QUOTE=conman420;28495674]According to your diagram good people aren't people...[/QUOTE] Good people is a subclass of people.

geel9 claims good people are subhuman. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

Thats something geel9 would say.

say what mothafucka?

Thanks for this great guide, now maybe I'll pass my midterm :cheers:

without fallacies my posts would just be blank insults impossible

We should have a test argument just to see how many of these we can catch.

[QUOTE=geel9;28493841]Let me explain how distributed terms work. A term is "distributed" when it refers to ALL MEMBERS of its class. I'll highlight the distributed terms for you here. All [b]socrates[/b] is a man. No [b]men[/b] are [b]mortals[/b] Therefore, no [b]socrates[/b] is a [b]mortal[/b]. In a particular statement (that is, a statement with the form "some" or "some...not"), no terms are distributed. Here's a venn diagram. [img_thumb]http://foxprods.net/experimentalists/Syllogism.png[/img_thumb] See? The logical, rules-based reason this is invalid is because it breaks a rule of syllogisms: In at least one premise(supporting statement), the middle term(the only term that is in both premises) MUST be distributed(and it is not!) [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] I should write another topic on the fallacies of Syllogisms and whatnot...hmm.[/QUOTE] what the fuck stop butchering logic thanks

[QUOTE=Glitch360;28491487]what are your parameters[/QUOTE] I must've missed something, where did these phrases come from?

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28499287]We should have a test argument just to see how many of these we can catch.[/QUOTE] No we shouldn't because a leading authority on a subject that is not logic said we shouldn't.

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;28491562]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] Plastic container food MUST be nice!

OP sucks at Latin.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28499625]No we shouldn't because a leading authority on a subject that is not logic said we shouldn't.[/QUOTE] That sounds like something hitler would say

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;28500171]That sounds like something hitler would say[/QUOTE] That is not true or else I will hurt you!

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28500195]That is not true or else I will hurt you![/QUOTE] Don't compare apples, vis a vis, to oranges, per se. i hope this gets old soon

OP, you should add the "Straw Man" up there.

I hate when people explicitly point out a fallacy someone makes it an argument, whether they're right or wrong, they still look like complete dickheads.

[QUOTE=conman420;28495674]According to your diagram good people aren't people...[/QUOTE] hence why he said it's invalid

If there is one thing I absolutely hate in debates is when someone points out a point that is frequented and think that it is wrong based off of, nothing. I have had so many debates where I will repeat the same point over and over again because I think that would be good enough to prove my point. Then the other person disregards it entirely to bring up a convoluted idea that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, then I state what I previously said, and the cycle continues. I have a friend who thinks that he is so god damned great at arguing because he points out a tendency in my arguments, even though I could do the same to him, but instead I respect his right to repeat himself if necessary. When you are in the middle of argument, do not just randomly burst out, "YOU KEEP ON DOING (insert whatever you repeat), YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I AM SAYING, AND YOU ARE WRONG!" You only make yourself more of an annoyance than an actual intellectual.

[QUOTE=The Pretender;28491642]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>"[/QUOTE] BUSH SPENT TOO MUCH MONEY ON THAT USELESS FUCKING WAR. [IMG]http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll37/Geesaroni/RageFace.png[/IMG] That's how I usually respond to people like Person1, in all seriousness.