• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

List of fallacies indicative of invalid arguments

Riveroaks

Riveroaks

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
10,230
Reaction score
2,081
Location
Peoples' Republic Of CALIF
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a list of common fallacies nicely summarized in Wiki which show incorrect argument and/or thinking in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity and soundness.

Most of us are familiar with some of these. The list is quite extensive and therefore useful to everyone.

The commonly accepted forensic debate procedures simply require an opponent to point out the fallacy, which then rebuts and negates the other side's point of view.

Please see the attached list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
Here is a list of common fallacies nicely summarized in Wiki which show incorrect argument and/or thinking in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity and soundness.

Most of us are familiar with some of these. The list is quite extensive and therefore useful to everyone.

The commonly accepted forensic debate procedures simply require an opponent to point out the fallacy, which then rebuts and negates the other side's point of view.

Please see the attached list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Click to expand...

Merely pointing out a fallacy does not negate the other sides point of view. For if it did, you wouldn't have a point of view at all.
 
Moot said:
Merely pointing out a fallacy does not negate the other sides point of view. For if it did, you wouldn't have a point of view at all.
Click to expand...

Merely pointing out the fallacy does indeed refute their argument, and gives you the winning point on this issue.

A formal debate is scored like a boxing match. The one with the most points wins.

An impartial judge usually does the scoring.
 
Riveroaks said:
Merely pointing out the fallacy does indeed refute their argument, and gives you the winning point on this issue.
A formal debate is scored like a boxing match. The one with the most points wins.
Click to expand...

Fine, the premise of your thread is "argument from fallacy". So according to you that makes me the winner of this match. :cool:
 
Last edited:
All things considered, that is a good list.
 
Every God thread ever :

Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.
 
I can't count the number of times when someone has incorrectly accused someone of using a fallacy on this forum. The favorite seems to be falsely dismissing legitimate criticism as a straw man. Relying on pointing out fallacies tends to detract from the discussion, rather than improving it.
 
Moot said:
Fine, the premise of your thread is "argument from fallacy". So according to you that makes me the winner of this match. :cool:
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? You seem to have lost me.

My thread does not contain any premise.

It is simply a list of definitions of fallacies in argument and rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
I can't count the number of times when someone has incorrectly accused someone of using a fallacy on this forum. The favorite seems to be falsely dismissing legitimate criticism as a straw man. Relying on pointing out fallacies tends to detract from the discussion, rather than improving it.
Click to expand...

Straw-man is a popular fallacy. I think more formally it would be entitled a "hasty generalization."
 
Riveroaks said:
Here is a list of common fallacies nicely summarized in Wiki which show incorrect argument and/or thinking in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity and soundness.

Most of us are familiar with some of these. The list is quite extensive and therefore useful to everyone.

The commonly accepted forensic debate procedures simply require an opponent to point out the fallacy, which then rebuts and negates the other side's point of view.

Please see the attached list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Click to expand...

Very nice.
 
Paschendale said:
I can't count the number of times when someone has incorrectly accused someone of using a fallacy on this forum. The favorite seems to be falsely dismissing legitimate criticism as a straw man. Relying on pointing out fallacies tends to detract from the discussion, rather than improving it.
Click to expand...

I can't count the number of times when someone has incorrectly denied the accusation of a strawman when it occurs - otherwise known as the "double down on the stupid" philosophy, or colloquially known as the "nuh uh" defense.
 
Ockham said:
I can't count the number of times when someone has incorrectly denied the accusation of a strawman when it occurs - otherwise known as the "double down on the stupid" philosophy, or colloquially known as the "nuh uh" defense.
Click to expand...

Ok Ockham with a moniker like Ockham there must be some smarts in you somewhere not just comic clown.

:)
 
Critter7r said:
Every God thread ever :

Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.
Click to expand...

Sure, the Born-Again's and any other fanatic fringe elements will most often begin their religious rant with something like this -- indeed.

I would not over-generalize however. Otherwise you will have committed the "hasty generalization" fallacy.

Because a logical discussion of a Supreme Being is possible indeed, if you start with philosophy, extend to theology, and conclude with physical science.

A quick example -- a college chem professor told our class that the second law of thermodynamics is proof itself of some kind of God simply due to the need for one as such. Otherwise nothing could ever have gotten started in the physical universe. It is the briefest proof of God that I have every heard -- one sentence based on a law of physics.
 
Last edited:
wiki is not bad yet I prefer the more concise listing of the work of Dr. Michael C. Labossiere on "nizkor".

Fallacies

In the end, however, it doesn't matter where one studies the stumbling stones to logic.
 
Riveroaks said:
Here is a list of common fallacies nicely summarized in Wiki which show incorrect argument and/or thinking in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity and soundness.

Most of us are familiar with some of these. The list is quite extensive and therefore useful to everyone.

The commonly accepted forensic debate procedures simply require an opponent to point out the fallacy, which then rebuts and negates the other side's point of view.

Please see the attached list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Click to expand...


It's a useful list, but I think some of those alleged fallacies need to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, decisions by courts often contain appeals to tradition, because precedent is important in determining whether individual and government actions are legitimate. Individual rights are somewhat a matter of consensus about whether a person should be free to engage in some act, and of how long that consensus has existed in our culture.

I also question what the article says about "slippery slope" arguments. I don't think they are necessarily claims that one event inevitably starts a chain of events which end in a clearly undesirable result. It's legitimate to criticize or condemn an action that causes a certain result because that action also makes some other clearly harmful result considerably more likely. It's not inevitable that a person will kill or injure himself by pulling the trigger when playing Russian Roulette, because the resulting movement of the firing pin might take place in an empty chamber. But pulling the trigger makes the death or injury much more likely than it would be if it were not pulled, because the movement of the firing pin might take place in the chamber containing the cartridge.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
Merely pointing out the fallacy does indeed refute their argument, and gives you the winning point on this issue.

A formal debate is scored like a boxing match. The one with the most points wins.

An impartial judge usually does the scoring.
Click to expand...

You really think a discussion is about winning? Come on. You aren't in a prep school debating class here, I would have hoped.
 
matchlight said:
It's a useful list, but I think some of those alleged fallacies need to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, decisions by courts often contain appeals to tradition, because precedent is important in determining whether individual and government actions are legitimate. Individual rights are somewhat a matter of consensus about whether a person should be free to engage in some act, and of how long that consensus has existed in our culture.

I also question what the article says about "slippery slope" arguments. I don't think they are necessarily claims that one event inevitably starts a chain of events which end in a clearly undesirable result. It's legitimate to criticize or condemn an action that causes a certain result because that action makes some other clearly harmful result considerably more likely. It's not inevitable that a person will kill or injure himself by pulling the trigger when playing Russian Roulette; the chamber might be empty. But pulling the trigger makes the death or injury much more likely than it would be if it were not pulled, because the chamber containing the cartridge might be in position to fire.
Click to expand...

So you WANT to be able to use fallacies in your arguments ???

That's actually funny.

Lawyers use fallacies in their arguments with juries all the time. They get away with it because people are untrained or stupid.

Debating is a totally different matter.

I believe the fallacy in your argument in favor of fallacies is one of affirming the consequent -- aka begging the question.
 
Mindless recitation of a fallacy term without providing additional follow-through is still just lazy argument.
 
joG said:
You really think a discussion is about winning? Come on. You aren't in a prep school debating class here, I would have hoped.
Click to expand...

A discussion is a complex interaction with the goal of persuading or deceiving.

The list of fallacies helps prevent deceit.
 
Riveroaks said:
Lawyers use fallacies in their arguments with juries all the time. They get away with it because people are untrained or stupid.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think this is a wise move, as the defense lawyer would counter attack the fallacy making the lawyer who used it look like an arse. He would also loose credibility.
 
Riveroaks said:
The commonly accepted forensic debate procedures simply require an opponent to point out the fallacy, which then rebuts and negates the other side's point of view.

Please see the attached list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Click to expand...

Moot said:
Merely pointing out a fallacy does not negate the other sides point of view. For if it did, you wouldn't have a point of view at all.
Click to expand...

Riveroaks said:
Care to elaborate? You seem to have lost me.

My thread does not contain any premise.

It is simply a list of definitions of fallacies in argument and rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Your OP does as bolded by me.

You have fallen into the trap of Fallacist's Fallacy by the wording you chose in the OP.

"Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence."

Point does indeed go to Moot.
 
Riveroaks said:
Everybody is supposed to know the list, and the judge definitely will know it.
Click to expand...

The average person does not need to "know" the list. It's a potentially useful guide. However, taken too stringently, without much additional self-critiquing, aides very little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom