• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The 10 Commandments of Logic

Abbazorkzog

Centre-left libertarian populist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
11,809
Reaction score
3,953
Location
Post-Societal Collapse
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT MY OWN WORK, I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY...but it is awesome you will love it.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF LOGIC

01. Thou shalt not attack the person's character, but the argument
[ -Ad Hominem- ]

02. Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make it easier to attack.
[ -Straw Man Fallacy- ]

03. Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the all.
[ -Hasty Generalization- ]

04. Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of it's premises is true.
[ -Begging The Question- ]

05. Thou shalt not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause
[ -Host Hoc / False Cause- ]

06. Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
[ -False dichotomy- ]

07. Thou shalt not argue that because of our ignorance, a claim must be true or false.
[ -Ad Ignorantum- ]

08. Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.
[ -Burden of Proof Reversal- ]

09. Thou shalt not assume "this" follows "that" when there is no logical connection
[ -Non Sequitur- ]

10. Thou shalt not argue that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.
[ -Bandwagon Fallacy- ]

And no, I am not trying to take all of the fun out of politics. ;)
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is not that a day goes by without the 1st logical fallacy in the list is being used.
 

Imperium populi

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
25
Reaction score
8
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I like it. Reminds me of mister spock.
 

lb_on_teh_cb

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
1,114
Reaction score
133
Location
Hazzard County
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
DifferentDrummr;bt3305 said:
There are about 8 others worth mentioning, but these are probably the most common ones.
would like to see those also
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
2,074
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Unfortunately, some of these are misrepresentations of the fallacies in parentheses. For example, number 04. reads "Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of it's premises is true" and calls it, in brackets, "Begging the Question." Assuming one of your premises is true is not begging the question--at some point, any argument must assume its premises (otherwise, we would end up with an endless chain of arguments in favor of the next level of premises). Assuming your conclusion as one of your premises is begging the question. Others on the list can be counter-exampled. I hate to be a kill-joy, but logic is important, and misunderstanding fallacies all-too-commonly leads to people reaching bad conclusions.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
lb_on_teh_cb;bt3413 said:
would like to see those also
Well, if I may, I'd add:
Anyone who clicks on the links above and explores at least two of the sites referenced will observe that there are literally hundreds of specific fallacies. Accordingly, it takes a good deal of work to learn them all and, in turn, evict them from one's arguments; however, their appearance in one's arguments necessarily invalidates all or part of an argument and, depending on the materiality of the invalid component of the argument, an argument's conclusion.

Critical to eschewing fallacious reasoning is understanding the nature of the point (conclusion) one endeavors to argue. One of the most common failings I observe arises before a speaker/writer pens to paper their very first word. Often enough, communicators assume they are in a position to argue for their conclusion and/or that the conclusion they advocate can be deductively sound or inductively cogent. One's being thus deluded is far more fundamental to the inadequacy of an argument than is any fallacy one may insert into the argument; it is a failure to comprehend the full nature of that about which one'd argue. Naturally, not understanding fully a topic's gravamen will result ineluctably in one's including fallacious lines of reasoning in arguing for or against it.
 

AncientGeek

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
776
Reaction score
378
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT MY OWN WORK, I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY...but it is awesome you will love it.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF LOGIC

01. Thou shalt not attack the person's character, but the argument
[ -Ad Hominem- ]

02. Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make it easier to attack.
[ -Straw Man Fallacy- ]

03. Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the all.
[ -Hasty Generalization- ]

04. Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of it's premises is true.
[ -Begging The Question- ]

05. Thou shalt not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause
[ -Host Hoc / False Cause- ]

06. Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
[ -False dichotomy- ]

07. Thou shalt not argue that because of our ignorance, a claim must be true or false.
[ -Ad Ignorantum- ]

08. Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.
[ -Burden of Proof Reversal- ]

09. Thou shalt not assume "this" follows "that" when there is no logical connection
[ -Non Sequitur- ]

10. Thou shalt not argue that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.
[ -Bandwagon Fallacy- ]

And no, I am not trying to take all of the fun out of politics. ;)
Love it. But it leaves out one of the most important: tu quoque (whatabout)
 

Vadinho

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
2,518
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well, if I may, I'd add:
Anyone who clicks on the links above and explores at least two of the sites referenced will observe that there are literally hundreds of specific fallacies. Accordingly, it takes a good deal of work to learn them all and, in turn, evict them from one's arguments; however, their appearance in one's arguments necessarily invalidates all or part of an argument and, depending on the materiality of the invalid component of the argument, an argument's conclusion.

Critical to eschewing fallacious reasoning is understanding the nature of the point (conclusion) one endeavors to argue. One of the most common failings I observe arises before a speaker/writer pens to paper their very first word. Often enough, communicators assume they are in a position to argue for their conclusion and/or that the conclusion they advocate can be deductively sound or inductively cogent. One's being thus deluded is far more fundamental to the inadequacy of an argument than is any fallacy one may insert into the argument; it is a failure to comprehend the full nature of that about which one'd argue. Naturally, not understanding fully a topic's gravamen will result ineluctably in one's including fallacious lines of reasoning in arguing for or against it.
I beg to differ that using one of these in an argument loses that argument by default. Say I was arguing with you about the sum of two numbers. You argued incorrectly over and over again. At some point, I say "listen you idiot, two plus two is four, now shut the hell up." Would that mean I lost the argument or my patience?
 
Top Bottom