You might have noticed that in debates here, many points are refuted as "fallacies". Of course, the definition of a fallacy is simple.
Fallacy (n) : A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning
The problem is, there are so many different types of fallacies that you can't simply refute something incorrect as a "fallacy" all the time and expect to be taken seriously. That shows you can spot errors but do nothing to elaborate. Also, if someone claims a certain fallacy, it can be a pain to have to figure out what they're referring to, and if it actually applies to what the fallacy claim is referring to. Therefore, out of complete boredom and the practicality of helping clear any potential confusion of the claiming of fallacies, I shall be stealing the list from
Wikipedia and expanding. You'll see why in a minute.
Also, I can't come up with an example
~~~~~~Formal Fallacies~~~~~~
Formal fallacies are so due to their technical structureAppeal to Law wrote:
An argument which implies that legislation is a moral imperative.
Kikori: Marijuana should be legal.
Lander: But the law says it's illegal, therefore it's dangerous.
While it's true that Marijuana is illegal, the fact that it is so doesn't specifically make it dangerous enough to deserve to be barred from production and use.
Appeal to Probability wrote:
Assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
Znath: "It's possible Korea could launch an attack, since they're making a stupid demand for money. We're all doomed; they're going to get their nukes out."
Kikori: "Or they're just being stupid and there's only a chance of them going to war."
Yes, Korea is making irrational demands, but the possibility of war from their behavior is simply a possibility. The future can only be speculated.
Argument from Fallacy wrote:
Assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.
Kikori: "The sky is green, clouds aren't in sight, and there's a nice breeze. I'd call this a good day."
Matt: "The sky is blue. What kind of good day are you having?"
Just because there's even a genuine a fault in part of the argument, that may not stop the conclusion itself from being true. Just fix the fact and be done with it.
Bare Assertion Fallacy wrote:
Premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
Computer: "I am programmed to always think correctly. Therefore, I am always correct."
Human: "That's circular logic."
As stated, that's circular logic. If something is true, it must be proven so. Nothing is true "just because it is".
Base Rate Fallacy wrote:
Using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
Matt: "I bought a scratch card, and have to match up one number between 1 and 5 to five other numbers between 1 and 5. How can I lose?"
Znath: "Because gambling isn't always easy or fair. Scratch card companies don't make all the combinations of numbers appear randomly; there would be too many winners."
Learn the facts before making a claim.
Conjunction Fallacy wrote:
Assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
Kikori: "If McCain becomes president. He'll fix the economy, put the finishing touches on our war, and live long enough to keep Palin from turning into our president."
Zizi: "Or he'll just live long enough to keep Palin from office. Everything else is just a promise we haven't seen yet."
You can say that your position has all the right answers, but odds are it doesn't.
Correlative Based Fallacies wrote:
- Denying the correlative: Where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
Phoenix: "Karen couldn't have murdered her ex-husband. It must have been their servant!"
Godot: "How do you explain that when, on that day, the servant was having dinner in another city on his night off!?"
If the alternative doesn't exist, don't bring it up.
- Suppressed correlative: Where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
Godot: "How do you explain that when, on that day, the servant was having dinner on his night off!?"
Phoenix: "The restaurant he ate at was close enough to their home that he could have made a quick run and committed the crime."
If there's actually a possibility, you're allowed to present it. (And yes, I intentionally changed a little fact about their case to help the fallacy topic.)
Fallacy of Necessity wrote:
A degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
Matt: "We need to stop cutting down trees! We're losing habitats, animals, and destroying nature."
Lander: "Foresters re-plant trees once they're cut, and there is such a thing as farming trees, anyway."
Even if the conclusion has some truth to it, exaggerating it with facts carrying great impact doesn't make it the "right" answer.
False Dilemma (False Dichotomy) wrote:
Where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
Kikori: "If Obama's president, we turn communist. If McCain's president, he dies and we get Palin. This year sucks."
Zizi: "Or Obama may not ruin the country? McCain may not die? Or one of the lesser names could pull an upset.
"
Usually going along with Correlative fallacies, options exist for a reason. Denying them without a reason of your own doesn't bode well.
If-By-Whisky wrote:
An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Kikori: "I don't understand why people debate about abortion. The laws in place in most states limit it to the first trimester, so all that's to debate is if it's wrong to murder little parasites."
"Murder" is a term anti-abortionists use to slander abortion, but people who recognize an embryo as a cluster of cells with no heartbeat, brain, or life could (could, not do) call it a "parasite". Refine the terminology to properly pick a side.
Is-Ought Problem wrote:
The inappropriate inference that because something is some way or other, so it ought to be that way.
Zac: "The Marijuana topic is locked. It ought to be that way."
Kikori: "For what reason?"
Nothing ought to be a way just because it is that way. Change is the one constant in life for a reason.
Homunculus Fallacy wrote:
Where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
Matt: "We need to stop cutting down trees."
Lander: "You don't know much about foresting, do you? Bob doesn't just cut down trees like a madman. He replants. The trees will grow back eventually; that's why America's forests aren't vanishing way fast like South America's."
Kikori: "Does he replant with seeds or saplings? Are the trunks removed? Do they tend to the new forest, or does nature run its own course?"
Examples are all well and good, but if you're going to give an explanation, make sure to explain.
Masked Man Fallacy wrote:
The substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Kikori: "A race of blonde haired blue eyed people would be weird at first, but probably kind of cool."
Znath: "Hitler thought that. Look where that ended up."
I might be turning this into guilt by association, but if you're talking with someone, talk with that person. Not to them as if they were someone else with the same view.
Naturalistic Fallacy wrote:
A fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right.
Kikori: "I didn't teach him to be this way, he just kind of decided on his own he liked to kick for attention."
Lander: "Dude, you can change that."
Once again, change being a constant in life is so for a reason. Not everything naturally occurring is a good thing.
Nirvana Fallacy wrote:
When solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
Zizi: "I don't know why Obama is getting such a bad response for his attempt at a stimulus."
Kikori: "Obama's whole stimulus crap flopped. What's he done aside from make our debt bigger?"
Don't bother trying to destroy what good comes out of a situation. The world's not black and white; it's meant to have shades and tints of grey.
Negative Proof Fallacy wrote:
Because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
Christian: "Where's your proof that there is no God?"
Atheist: "If he really is there, why doesn't he make the world a better place?"
We debate to share ideas and educate each other, not to try to prove someone else wrong.
Package-Deal Fallacy wrote:
Consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.
Aragorn: "Hitler was a communist that started war, Stalin was a war-mongering communist. What makes you think I want a commie neighbor? You think I have a death wish?"
Kikori: "Not all communists are cut from the same cloth, you know."
When you're dealing with people, be prepared to accept diversity. The only thing EVERYBODY has in common is that they all age at the same rate.
Red Herring wrote:
This occurs when a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.
Lander: "Look, Karate is good physical discipline, but it's just not that great for fighting, and you can't deny it."
Kikori: "What, so a style has to actually be practical for fighting? What about my street fighting?"
If you have to resort to switching the subject, either shut up and don't bother, find a proper way to link the two subjects or make a new topic for the subject you want.
Teleological Fallacy wrote:
In which a speaker claims that some object or idea has a purpose, and then claims that the existence of this purpose suggests or requires that the speaker's argument is true. The initial claim that a purpose must exist is rarely explicitly stated.
(I can't think up an example.)
General Definition Fallacy wrote:
In which a speaker will use a general definition of a term to a specific insinuation.
Kikori: "Why are you so against abortion?"
Fanatic: "Abortion is wrong. We shouldn't kill babies!"
If you can't be specific and learn the finer details about something you're willing to argue about, be ready for this claim.
~~~~~~Propositional Fallacies~~~~~~
Fallacies of the "If A is true, then B is" design.Affirming a Disjunct wrote:
Concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.
Kikori: "You're either my friend, or my enemy."
Zizi: "I'm not your friend."
Kikori: "Then you're my enemy."
Except that Zizi may very well be a stranger, or multiple other things between the extremes of good and bad.
Affirming the Consequent wrote:
The antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
Lander: "If I'm a Villager, then the village will win."
Host: "The village wins!"
Yes, this is a Mafia reference, but I thought Lander would appreciate it.
Anyway. The village wins the game, but there was no guarantee that Lander was a Villager during the game. He could have very well been a Mafia.
Denying the Antecedent wrote:
The consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
Kikori: "If it's sunny, I'm going to sweat bullets working out there."
Znath: "Well, have fun. It's cloudy, not sunny."
Kikori: "Awesome, I'm not gonna sweat!"
Except the possibility exists that Kikori will work hard enough to work up a sweat anyway. There's also that the heat and humidity may be bad enough to bring about the "B" result as well.
~~~~~~Quantificational Fallacies~~~~~~
Fallacies dealing with universal answers.Existential Fallacy wrote:
An argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
(I can see Evolution vs Religion being the example, but I don't know how to word it. Help?)
Proof by Example wrote:
Where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition.
Matt: "I don't get hangovers after drinking. Therefore, nobody does."
Companies can get away with pulling one test subject out of a set to judge the entire set by, but it doesn't work as well in debate of facts and thoughts.
~~~~~~Formal Syllogistic Fallacies~~~~~~
Logical fallacies that occur with problems in syllogisms. Think of "Humans are mammals. I'm a human. Therefore, I'm a mammal."Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise wrote:
When a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
Kikori: "The Twilight books are trash. People who read it don't enjoy real literature. Therefore, I enjoy real literature."
Lander: "No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly."
Examples stolen from Wikipedia. To draw conclusions based off this type of reasoning is faulty because if there's a negative premise, there must be a negative conclusion.
Fallacy of Exclusive Premesis wrote:
A categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
Even Wiki's example makes no sense. .-.
Fallacy of Four Terms wrote:
A categorical syllogism has four terms.
Aragorn: "Criminals are evil. Criminals carry guns. You carry a gun. Therefore, you are evil."
The problem lies in that "criminals" and "guns" aren't actually nor properly associated.
Illicit Major wrote:
A categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
"All dogs are mammals. No cats are dogs. Therefore, no cats are mammals."
The major of "mammals" is being butchered in this example. Flip it around so that it reads "Some mammals are dogs", and the logic is allowed to make sense.
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle wrote:
The middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.
Kikori: "All metal-heads have long hair. I have long hair. Therefore, I am a metal-head."
While it's a logical stereotype conclusion to draw, this is similar to affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent. If the statement "All people with long hair are metal-heads" is the true antecedent, then we have no fallacy.
~~~~~~Informal Fallacies~~~~~~
Less about the argument's structure.Argument from Repetition (Argumentum ad Nauseam) wrote:
Signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
Kikori: "Let's debate religion."
Lander: "Let's not. It's already been done a billion times; just look at past topics if you want that crap."
Even if it's been debated that many times, people have a right to debate anyway. Deal with it.
Appeal to Ridicule wrote:
A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
Matt: "Marijuana doesn't actually do real damage to a person."
Earl: "Sure, it just turns people into dull-headed zombies who can't form a sentence."
A joke's fine, but the rule of "common sense" applies. Ridicule doesn't work for debate.
Argument from Ignorance / Appeal to Ignorance wrote:
The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true.
Godot: "Phoenix has failed to prove that his client didn't kill Karen. Therefore, his client killed Karen."
If a question has no answer, it doesn't mean somebody's going to be dead wrong because of it.
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) wrote:
Where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.
Zizi: "Why does the Christian 'God' not heal the disabled if he really exists? Shouldn't he be a kind, just deity?"
I may have the example wrong, but results are results, not reasons.
Circular Cause and Consequence wrote:
Where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
Very identical to the Bare Assertion Fallacy, but dealing with content rather than structure.
Continuum Fallacy (Fallacy of the Beard) wrote:
Appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.
Anyone make heads or tails of how to make an example?
Demanding Negative Proof wrote:
Attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim.
Kikori: "The universe is a multiverse." (Theory.)
Lander: "The universe is one universe." (Accepted Theory.)
Kikori: "Prove it's just one universe."
Both sides need to have some proof or citation ready.
Equivocation wrote:
The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
Zizi: "Abusive relationships shouldn't happen."
Kikori: (Abusive how? Physically, mentally, emotionally?) "You're right."
It may be an accident to use terms and not be detailed about specific meanings, but it's still very possible to pick your words this way. Try not to.
Etymological Fallacy wrote:
Which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
The "n" word is probably the best example, but lord knows it's not allowed here.
Fallacies of Distribution wrote:
- Division: Where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
- Composition: Where one reasons logically that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole
- Ecological fallacy: Inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong
Fallacy of Many Questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) wrote:
Someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Kikori: "Hi, Sarah."
Sarah: "Have you stopped being a stupid little kid yet?"
The question asked implies that what is asked about was true to start with. This kind of Fallacy is found in many jokes, but if actually used seriously, is potential for insult.
Fallacy of the Single Cause (Joint Effect, or Causal Oversimplification) wrote:
Occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Kikori: "Lander is mafia. He's not being active."
Lander: (Or it's because of that, my lack of lynching my friends, how careful I've been around you, and _____?)
There can be a main cause to highlight, and this Fallacy isn't always one to ruin an argument, but it's in your best interests to be thorough.
False Attribution wrote:
Occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
There are too many potential examples to give. When you debate, you're not out to try to lie, cheat, or steal some kind of victory. Just present facts.
Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context (Contextomy) wrote:
Refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.
Lander wrote:
I had fun as a Serial Killer.
Again, this is joke material in a lot of cases, but for debate, this one's easy to avoid if you simply try not to do it.
False Compromise / Middle Ground wrote:
Asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct.
Matt: "Marijuana should be legal."
Kikori: "No, it's like any other drug and should stay banned."
Burks: "Then it could just be legalized for specific purposes...?
While the point of a debate is not to win over the 'opposing' side, not everything has or needs an agreement in the middle. It's easier to agree to disagree.
Gambler's Fallacy wrote:
The incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events.
Kikori: "When 2012 finally comes, we're all doomed."
Lander: "Says a calendar."
A chance is a chance, is a chance, is a chance. A gamble can only work out in your favor if it's rigged.
Incomplete Comparison wrote:
Where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Kikori: "Why do you think I'm some kind of redneck?"
Znath: "Because you're in Tennessee. Calls itself the "Home of Country Music", right?"
Lack of information makes for a faulty argument.
Inconsistent Comparison wrote:
Where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Kikori: "We're not all rednecks here. Look on this chart, barely anyone in Nashville even likes Country most anymore."
Znath: "But look at alcohol sales between then and now."
Sometimes it can't be helped, but all we need is a little consistency.
Loki's Wager wrote:
The unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
Aragorn: "Today, I've started a topic on abuse."
Kikori: "Are you serious? Abuse of yourself, or abuse of others? Abusing physical, mental, emotional, drug, animal? You can't just pick a definition for "abuse", you know.
Everything can be discussed.
Moving the Goalpost (Raising the Bar) wrote:
Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Kikori: "I've seen one person actually have a withdrawal from marijuana." (Hah, just broke the "nobody gets withdrawals" thought!)
Matt: "One single person? That's nothing; show me some real numbers."
There is such a thing as insignificant proof. However, if what's presented does logically make its point, don't try to fight it like this.
Perfect Solution Fallacy wrote:
Where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Lander: "Ugh, I'm sick of these guys treating good women like crap. I say we start knocking them around first. That'll shut them up."
Kikori: "There will always be guys like that, you know."
While it's probably not an argument-breaking fallacy, it is usually an error on the one with the "solution" to think their solution fixes everything, instead of a portion.
Proof by Verbosity (Argumentum Verbosium) (Proof by Intimidation) wrote:
Submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.
Given that the Fallacy involves a too-mundane example to go through, it'll simply be paraphrased. Proof by Verbosity is giving 'proof' so long and annoying to sift through that it's simply accepted, not picked through.
To avoid, it's not hard to highlight the facts relevant to the argument.
Prosecutor's Fallacy wrote:
A low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
Godot: "The DNA sample found in the hair in the pocket was run through 20,000 samples. Tell me, out of a one in twenty-thousand chance to make a match, do you think the suspect is really innocent since his DNA was the match?"
Phoenix: "That doesn't mean he has a 1/20,000 chance to be innocent. That simply means 20,000 tests were run!"
If you're going to use numbers from rarity or testing, make sure you word what you want to say correctly.
Psychologist's Fallacy wrote:
Occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
Lander: "Look, 9/11 was caused because those freakin' Arabs are just mad at our policing the world."
Opinions are all well and good, but debates tend to revolve around facts supporting a case.
Regression Fallacy wrote:
Ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Kikori: "Ever notice how whoever gets puts on the cover of a Madden game gets the worst season of their life? That game cover is like a curse or something."
Lander: "That's not really practical."
Potential cause =/= actual cause. Simple as that.
Reification (Hypostatization) wrote:
A fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Ma Chao: "Justice has chosen my spear to punish you!"
If something's not concrete, it can't make its own decisions. We think of our ideas; they don't think for us.
Retrospective determinism wrote:
The argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
Matt: "Ugh, why did I do that? It was gonna happen no matter what..."
Aragorn: "Hindsight is always 20/20. And there's no way to know what would have happened if you'd done otherwise."
Everything happens for a reason. Not because it was "destined" to happen. You can argue fate vs free will all you want, but to claim an event was fate is usually Fallacious.
Supressed Correlative wrote:
An argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible.
Lander: "Ugh, I hate being broke."
Kikori: "You actually have wealth in possessions, way better than people who literally have nothing."
While it's not a faulty logic and actually a good tool for support and sometimes for speech, in debate this Fallacy is simply trying to remove a statement from play by removing its significance.
Wrong Direction wrote:
Where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
Kikori: "People get headaches because they drink too much."
Zizi: "Or they're not feeling well to start with and are drinking liquids to help themselves feel better."
If the cause isn't known, just make sure you're guessing. If the cause is for sure known, it'll only make you look silly to try to reverse cause and effect.
~~~~~~Faulty Generalizations~~~~~~
Self explanatory. Be careful with generalizing.~~~~~~Red Herring Fallacies~~~~~~
Fallacies dealing with not sticking to the topic.Ad Hominem wrote:
Attacking the person instead of the argument.
Aragorn: "Look, Kikori, not all criminals hold guns. So why would banning them stop crime?"
Kikori: "What are you, an idiot? It would only solve some, obviously, but if you really want to say it would fix it all..."
Attacking on its own isn't respectful, but making it your argument as well is just immature. Do not do this if you can help it.
Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to the Stick" or Appeal to Force) wrote:
Where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party.
Matt: "Marijuana should be legal."
Zizi: "Sure, because getting arrested in a public civil disobedience protest about it will make it right."
Just debate the facts. No need to get the lynch mobs out over a view that doesn't meet your own.
Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Belief, Appeal to the Majority, Appeal to the People) wrote:
Where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true.
Matt: "Marijuana should be legal."
Lander: "Despite that billions of people are completely okay with it being illegal, right?"
Isn't the point of a debate normally to challenge conventional thinking for personal beliefs? Don't try this one.
Association Fallacy (Guilt by Association) wrote:
As the name implies, carrying guilt purely by association with a negative party. Think back to the "All this are that" idea.
Cop: "All predators are middle-age men. He is a middle-age man. I should arrest him."
When you're dealing with people, expect differences and individuality. Try not to assume.
Appeal to Authority wrote:
Where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
Lander: "My Judo master claims Drunken Fist is too impractical to be for real fighting. I'd think he knows what he's talking about."
Whether a fact or opinion, something has to be backed up by more than just an educated person's statement. This is where "Cite your source" comes into play.
Appeal to Consequence wrote:
A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes that a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party.
Democrat: "Obama will be the president, or his stimulus won't fix our economy."
This is very much related to wishful thinking, and works both ways between positive and negative results. Just because it sounds good on paper, that doesn't make it true or false.
Appeal to Emotion wrote:
Where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. Most common emotions to exploit include...
- Appeal to Consequences: See Above.
- Appeal to Fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
- Appeal to Flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
- Appeal to Pity: a specific type of appeal to emotion
- Appeal to Ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion
- Appeal to Spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
- Wishful Thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
- Appeal to Ignorance: See Informal Fallacies
Appeal to Motive wrote:
Where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
Mord: "Greetings."
Tanks: "The only reason you're still allowed in chat is Sammy likes you."
Bias is a fun card to pull. Keep it with the fun, not the facts.
Appeal to Novelty wrote:
Where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
Example? See: Cars. Video games. Books. Music.
Time is a factor if you're talking about sales, statistics, and timelines. If the word (or anything related to) "new" doesn't belong in the equation, don't add it.
Appeal to Poverty (Argumentum ad Lazarum) -OR- Appeal to Wealth (Argumentum ad Crumenam) wrote:
Concluding that a statement's truth value is affected by a party's financial situation. Very similar to "Agrumentum ad Lazarum". The terms "ad lazarum" and "ad crumenam" can be interchangeable.
Lander: "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
Kikori: "What, so you're saying Bill Gates is the world's smartest man?"
Wealth is the result of effort, whether it be honest or not. It is most likely not good grounds for a person's credibility in a debate.
Argument from Silence (Argumentum ex Silentio) wrote:
A conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
Lander: "Can you tell me how to unlock this or that?"
Kikori: "Yes, but I won't."
Lander: "Yeah, 'cause you don't know how."
If you want to call out a silence or lack of response, don't claim that the silence means a negative result. Simply ponder, or ask, why.
Appeal to Tradition wrote:
Where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it.
Zizi: "Nothing against gay folk, but America's pretty much denied them legality for years now. Homosexuality just isn't accepted though history."
Kikori: "Excluding the Romans, you know."
This is a case of please-check-facts, seeing as many traditions are made in incorrect ideas or more personal beliefs.
Chronological Snobbery wrote:
Where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.
Kikori: "The Medieval folk had a good concept of smithing for their time.
Lander: "You mean back in the days people thought the world was flat? They were too stupid to have a concept of much then."
(Whether or not my timeline is correct, the idea stands.)
Facts, thoughts, and ideas change over time. Just because people had something wrong at one point doesn't mean EVERYTHING was wrong then.
Judgmental Language wrote:
Insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
Lander: "You can either listen to some stubborn-as-mule politicians, or our Republican's sane words."
It's bad enough to have to resort to an insult... Making it worse by targeting only the views not matching yours is just silly.
Poisoning the Well wrote:
Where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
Znath: "Sure, a guy who's been in prison is okay to argue about gun laws."
While it's not as directly offensive as a plain old 'Ad Hominem' Fallacy, it's still just not right.
Straw Man Fallacy wrote:
Based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
- Perverted Analogy: Twisting an opponent's words to mean something broader than intended.
- False Surrender: Offering truce or falsely surrendering the position in order to misrepresent opponent's position as unprovable or ad nauseam while ignoring Aumann's agreement theorem.
While this uncommonly happen as an accident, this is almost always intentional and not very welcome when caught.
Style over Substance Fallacy wrote:
Occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument.
Znath: "You're really quoting Wikipedia? Isn't that like debate's biggest mistake?"
Tom: "So you're going to refute the statistics for deaths, injuries, and estimated damage costs of the 9/11 incident just because I'm quoting Wikipedia?"
If an argument isn't worded well, the worst you can do is ask someone to try to make it more friendly to the eyes, or (gasp!) try harder to understand.
Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy wrote:
Occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
Kikori: "You really think that candidate's words are credible in that quote after he lied and said the exact opposite here?"
Lander: "And yours being a liar here isn't any better, you know."
At the best, two wrongs prove that each wrong are not better than the other. There is no cancellation. There are only wrongs. Look for actual rights instead.
Tu quoque wrote:
The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.
Mord (to friend): "Nub."
Lander: "Wow, do you know how stupid it is to call your friends "Nub", "Noob", or anything like that?"
Kikori: "You mean like you do with me, Landerp?"
If someone is guilty of the argument they oppose, deal with it. Just worry about the facts as they are, and if you can ask a question instead of make someone look "guilty", please do the former.
~~~~~~Battlefield Fallacy~~~~~~This idea was not created by me, but the message is very clear. It is also not an official fallacy, but is the single biggest one seen within this Debate Forum.
Quote:
The problem with this forum is that debate turns into a fight. What starts out as a topic of people choosing to present facts and share their opinions quickly turns into a case of the topic becoming a "battlefield", where each "side" has to "defeat" their "enemy" until one idea is accepted. The debate turns into the war, and the goal of educating one another and expanding your ideas turns into a goal of "victory" over these "enemies".
There is nothing mature about turning an intelligent discussion into needlessly pressing a point in hopes of reading some surrender. There is no point in starting or participating in a topic if your intent is to see anyone whose views don't agree with yours leave due to being unable to leave any impression on you. The debate forum is a forum for debate. It is not a battlefield for you opinions.
<3 Znath
