• 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 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...
*bolding mine

You've just earned a like from me specifically for the use of the word, 'forensic'.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I saw fallacies being used on both sides of the OJ Simpson criminal trial. This is called "rhetoric" when it happens -- what we normally associate with B/S.
 
Riveroaks said:
I saw fallacies being used on both sides of the OJ Simpson criminal trial. This is called "rhetoric" when it happens -- what we normally associate with B/S.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the counter lawyer didn't point out the error in logic to the juror?
 
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...

In our debating society at school the audience voted before and after the motion was discussed.
 
Fiddytree said:
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.
Click to expand...

It would be really nice if people in a democratic republic knew how to think critically.

But we all know that the overwhelming majority does not.

This is the inherent weakness in any democratically based form of government.

That's why Plato recommended a panel of philosophers to rule.

Sparta had a Gerousia like that kind of panel, and a dual kingship. But they never became a liberal society as a result. They continued their enslavement of the Helots and the Messenians.
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
In our debating society at school the audience voted before and after the motion was discussed.
Click to expand...

That's how politics in America and the rest of the world works.

That's political indeed but a poor form of judgeship.

Aristotle coined the term "politics" meaning "what happens in the cities."

Does not make it "right" however.
 
Riveroaks said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did not argue in favor of any logical fallacy. I just questioned whether a couple things that Wikipedia list claims are logical fallacies necessarily are. Do you think the lawyers on the Supreme Court are getting away with using fallacies in their arguments because the constitutional law professors who read their decisions are untrained or stupid? Our entire system of laws is based on the appeal to tradition, for God's sake. And who says the definition of a "slippery slope argument" used by the author of the Wikipedia article is the only correct one?
 
matchlight said:
...Do you think the lawyers on the Supreme Court are getting away with using fallacies in their arguments because the constitutional law professors who read their decisions are untrained or stupid? Our entire system of laws is based on the appeal to tradition, for God's sake...
Click to expand...

I think the SCOTUS has become a legislative body of late, out of their own view of the necessity to do so, because the two major parties that control the Federal Legislative Branch are unable to govern.

Roberts is the classic flip flopper.

In the case of ACA he voted as an activist Justice.

In the case of G/L marriage he criticized judicial activism.

He is a classic debater who can move the fact cards from one pocket to the other side and advocate either position.

He is therefore a hybrid activist-constructionist.

The GOP probably regrets nominating him.

The DEM's are not unpleased though.

At any rate, I don't think it has anything to do with fallacies.

These guys and gals on the SCOTUS are super smart.

Whenever they choose to ignore the U.S. Constitution they do so on purpose.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
Straw-man is a popular fallacy. I think more formally it would be entitled a "hasty generalization."
Click to expand...
No.

Hasty generalization is the fallacy of insufficient statistic(s) or sample.

Straw man is substituting the opponent's original argument with a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that argument.
 
Riveroaks said:
It would be really nice if people in a democratic republic knew how to think critically.

But we all know that the overwhelming majority does not.

This is the inherent weakness in any democratically based form of government.

That's why Plato recommended a panel of philosophers to rule.

Sparta had a Gerousia like that kind of panel, and a dual kingship. But they never became a liberal society as a result. They continued their enslavement of the Helots and the Messenians.
Click to expand...

Most people do not know how to think critically, however, that is slightly beside the point.

Pointing out fallacy does not negate a person's point of view. Furthermore, the human race is not wholly subject, nor should be, to logic. Logic, like emotionalism, can produce injustice.

Plato, whether he was serious or not, demonstrated the foolishness of philosopher kings. Philosophy and the polis necessitates a separation rather than a joining.

In terms of decorum internet debaters typically reach for their opponents utilization of fallacies, but conveniently ignore their own. Instead of focusing on topic itself, people become fixated on whether one's words appropriately apply to some Latin phrase they came across on the Internet in order to sound superior.
 
The most common fallacies I see on this forum are the Tu Quoque, usually offered by dogmatic leftists for the purpose of defending Islamism, and the appeals to tradition offered by dogmatic right wingers. Both are more or less equally prone to appeals to popularity and appeals to authority.
 
Chagos said:
No.

Hasty generalization is the fallacy of insufficient statistic(s) or sample.

Straw man is substituting the opponent's original argument with a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that argument.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chagos.

I believe it would be helpful for all of us to discuss each of the fallacies whenever they come up.

Maybe we can then form a more civil group of debaters with an ethical code of rules that we can all agree on.
 
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...

Here's what you said...

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


Here's your fallacious argument proven wrong....

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] fallacist's fallacy,[3] and bad reasons fallacy.[4]

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy



The entire premise of your thread is a fallacy based on a fallacy.
 
Gardener said:
The most common fallacies I see on this forum are the Tu Quoque, usually offered by dogmatic leftists for the purpose of defending Islamism, and the appeals to tradition offered by dogmatic right wingers. Both are more or less equally prone to appeals to popularity and appeals to authority.
Click to expand...

Remembering that, for the record, appeals to popularity and appeals to *false* authority are both erroneous basis for validation.

I love it whenever girlies say "but oh that's the most popular thing." Makes me want to shoot myself in the head just to escape from their presence.
 
Moot said:
Here's what you said...

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


Here's your fallacious argument proven wrong....

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] fallacist's fallacy,[3] and bad reasons fallacy.[4]

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy



The entire premise of your thread is a fallacy based on a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Well it is a normal debating rule for scoring points in a debate. Not sure when that was added to the wiki list.

Makes sense in some sense as far as the proposition goes, but yet employing a fallacy is rhetorical and not logical, so I don't agree with the wiki on this one.

And like I already said, you are incorrectly inferring there is a premise to my thread.

My thread is a list of definitions of fallacies.
 
Chomsky said:
*bolding mine

You've just earned a like from me specifically for the use of the word, 'forensic'.
Click to expand...

Forensic just means trying to solve a mystery, whether criminal, social, or purely debating for the challenge or enjoyment of the debate.
 
Riveroaks said:
It is normal based on my own past experience in college forensic debate. That is anecdotal. No way to prove it. It cannot be proved.
Click to expand...

And what weight would a statement that cannot be assessed or quantifiable, and is as you say anecdotal, score in said debate... probably pretty low right?
 
Ockham said:
And what weight would a statement that cannot be assessed or quantifiable, and is as you say anecdotal, score in said debate... probably pretty low right?
Click to expand...

For the purpose of evidence it is called testimony.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably deny that the utilization of a fallacy of argument taints the argument.

Why don't you chime in with your own debating experience and tell us how this behavior was treated in the forums you have experience with?

Then at least we will be on the road to forming some sort of consensus either way.
 
Riveroaks said:
It is normal based on my own past experience in college forensic debate. That is anecdotal. No way to prove it. It cannot be proved.
Click to expand...
Argument from ignorance. Come now, surely a forensic debater such as yourself can provide a link to the debate rules that give points for "argument from fallacy."
 
Riveroaks said:
For the purpose of evidence it is called testimony.
Click to expand...
What I quoted was referenced directly to a debate and how a debate is scored - why would you bring in unrelated purposes of evidence and testimony?

Riveroaks said:
I don't see how anyone can reasonably deny that the utilization of a fallacy of argument taints the argument.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that doesn't directly or indirectly answer my question.

Riveroaks said:
Why don't you chime in with your own debating experience and tell us how this behavior was treated in the forums you have experience with?
Click to expand...
Why don't you answer the question I asked? Let me repeat it for you....

Ockham said:
And what weight would a statement that cannot be assessed or quantifiable, and is as you say anecdotal, score in said debate... probably pretty low right?
Click to expand...

Feel free to agree or disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom