The REAL debate rules

[HelloDollyLlama]

So it is "fact" that if you bring "logic" within a "hundered yards" of a Republican, he will "burst into flames"?



Interesting. Could you provide me with supporting documentation and evidence demonstrating this hyper-spontaneous combustion you claim is a fact.


I shall wait. :lol:

Of course it is. I brought logic into this forum, and you've been flaming me ever since.

See, I lay a trap that even a blind man would have the sense to avoid, and I still have a victim. God, I love Republicans!

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

Fallacy: Begging the Question

Sa-wing and a miss.

 

[RightinNYC]

This was not just yanked from wiki.

You're right, you just copy pasted it from the other 17 forums you've posted this at.

The real rules of the forum, for those who have the cojones - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The rules - Political Forum

The Debate!

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Of course it is. I brought logic into this forum, and you've been flaming me ever since.

I still await you to prove spontaeous rigth wing compustion based on proximity of "logic". :lol:

See, I lay a trap that even a blind man would have the sense to avoid, and I still have a victim. God, I love Republicans!

:lol: what trap?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You're right, you just copy pasted it from the other 17 forums you've posted this at.

The real rules of the forum, for those who have the cojones - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The rules - Political Forum

The Debate!

:lol: why is this in "private debtes" I would like to thank you sir. :lol:

 

[niftydrifty]

My point is that in the vast majority of things discussed on this site, there is no "truth." If the question is "what was the unemployment rate last month," then yea, there is a "truth." But if the question is "what will the stimulus do for us/which party has the better ideas/who is more corrupt," then there's no point in trying to label anything as "truth."

AND ... if the question is "what will the stimulus do for us/which party has the better ideas/who is more corrupt," ... then knowledge of fallacies, etc, could be really helpful for anyone that wants to get at what is "true." there may not be an obvious "truth," but there will definitely be a "false."

 

[RightinNYC]

AND ... if the question is "what will the stimulus do for us/which party has the better ideas/who is more corrupt," ... then knowledge of fallacies, etc, could be really helpful for anyone that wants to get at what is "true." there may not be an obvious "truth," but there will definitely be a "false."

This might just be me, but I've never had much of a use for the whole formalized "fallacies" thing. The vast majority of them are common sense logical propositions that are good to know in the abstract. It's when people use them as a crutch in their debate that they become effectively useless.

Identifying fallacies in someone else's argument doesn't make your positions any stronger or your arguments any less crappy.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This might just be me, but I've never had much of a use for the whole formalized "fallacies" thing. The vast majority of them are common sense logical propositions that are good to know in the abstract. It's when people use them as a crutch in their debate that they become effectively useless.

Identifying fallacies in someone else's argument doesn't make your positions any stronger or your arguments any less crappy.

There is no thanks button, so THANKS!

 

[niftydrifty]

This might just be me, but I've never had much of a use for the whole formalized "fallacies" thing. The vast majority of them are common sense logical propositions that are good to know in the abstract. It's when people use them as a crutch in their debate that they become effectively useless.

Identifying fallacies in someone else's argument doesn't make your positions any stronger or your arguments any less crappy.

It's not just you. it's most of the people here. and it's tragic.

knowing about fallacies, and being able to identify them, is more than "a crutch." if they are known, they aren't just going to help you identify fallacies in other's arguments, they're going to help you avoid using them in your own.

I disagree with you, being able to identify fallacies most definitely will make your positions stronger and your arguments less crappy.

 

[RightinNYC]

It's not just you. it's most of the people here. and it's tragic.

knowing about fallacies, and being able to identify them, is more than "a crutch." if they are known, they aren't just going to help you identify fallacies in other's arguments, they're going to help you avoid using them in your own.

I disagree with you, being able to identify fallacies most definitely will make your positions stronger and your arguments less crappy.

I think I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that the majority of things on that list aren't worthwhile to know in some sense. I'm saying that it's not at all necessary to know them in the formalistic sense that some people tend to use them.

Example:

A: "747’s can fly, 747 engines are part of 747’s, therefore 747 engines can fly"
B: That doesn't make much sense, because it doesn't necessarily follow.

That's great. It doesn't really matter whether B knows that that's dumb because it's one of the "fallacies," or whether B knows that it's dumb because it's just logically dumb. Either way, he knows it.

Here's what I'm complaining about:

A: "747’s can fly, 747 engines are part of 747’s, therefore 747 engines can fly"
B: OMG thats the Fallacy of Division !!!111

It's just douchey.

 

[niftydrifty]

It's just douchey.

ok ... agreed!

 

[American]

Excellent post. Too bad many on here will continue to ignore the facts of the matter and engage in breaking just about every rule you listed up there.

I think I'll use it as a "red flag" reference.

:mrgreen:

 

[rebelbuc]

It's not just you. it's most of the people here. and it's tragic.

knowing about fallacies, and being able to identify them, is more than "a crutch." if they are known, they aren't just going to help you identify fallacies in other's arguments, they're going to help you avoid using them in your own.

I disagree with you, being able to identify fallacies most definitely will make your positions stronger and your arguments less crappy.

Knowing the names of the logical falacies is no substitute for having a logical mind that knows that one's opponent has used a deceptive tactic. The truly logical mind, trained in debate theory or not, doesn't need a label to call one's bluff. Now, on the other hand, I find a lot of illogical posters love to throw the "ad hominem" and other labels around when they have no other logical response! This thread poses as a lesson on debate theory while actually providing a cut-and-paste collage of conservative-bashing and wiki-like reprinted definitions. The opening post defines one of the falacies, I'm sure... I won't bother to analyze further!

 

[Real Talk]

In my opinion, the greatest and most common fallacy in peoples arguesments is the tendancy to state things beyond limits of certainty.
A highly related problem is the idea of mono causality.
When a person says "I think this based on this which makes me think it is at least part fo the truth, but certainty not the entirity of it", there position is unasaleable.
In my eyes, people who fail to state things within limits of certainty automatically fail at debating.