At one time or another, I'm sure we are all guilty of one of these. But some are more guilty than others.
[RightatNYU has this one written all over this thread!]
The
Straw Man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it. This often happens when someone quotes another
Debate Forum member out of context.
[I'm having a mental block on this one. Who would the reader think most aptly fits this description?]
Circular Reasoning occurs when stating in one's proof that which one is supposed to be proving.
[This is SKILMATIC's favorite.]
The
Missing the Point fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument appear to lead up to one particular conclusion but then a completely different conclusion is drawn.
[This is the one neo-cons use every time they respond to someone criticizing Bush. They go into this you Bush-hater rant that has nothing to do with what you were debating. For me, I don't criticize Bush just because I hate Bush. I criticize him because I object to his policies (and what has resulted from) as President].
The
Red Herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to some totally different issue. Sticking to the topic of each individual folder will minimize the impact of this fallacy.
[This is Stu Ghatze favorite fallacy (and possibly fantasy as well).]
The
Hasty Generalization fallacy occurs when there is a likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group.
[This is the most popular across the board.]
The
Ad Hominem fallacy occurs when an arguer's post appeals to feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also occurs when an arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through character assassination or personal attacks.
[This is the one used for defending the invasion of Iraq (are you listening GySgt, cnredd, SKILMATIC, RightatNYU, etc.)]
The
False Cause fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
[This is the one people throw at me a lot. But there are others that ask me to be more succinct, so I can tolerate the former bunch.]
The
Amphiboly fallacy occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous, owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion on this faulty interpretation. Again, this can happen when someone is quoted out of context. If a statement seems unclear, ask the person about it.
[People trying to link OBL with Hussein comes to mind reading this one.]
The
Composition fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of characteristic from the parts of something into the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it follows that the whole has that characteristic, too. However, the situation is such that the characteristic in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.
[GySgt loves this one. But he's not alone.]
The
Suppressed Evidence fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.
http://www.midnightbeach.com/hs/fallacys.html