The Instigator
TruthGen
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
BobTurner
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Fallacies are not valid arguments

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TruthGen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 61146
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

TruthGen

Pro

I challenge anyone who can defend fallacies as valid arguments in a reason-based debate.

1st round: Accept the challenge
2nd round: Statements and main points for the defense of each side.
3rd round: Rebuttals
4th round: Second-round rebuttals
5th round: Conclusion (No new information or rebuttals)
BobTurner

Con

I'll negate the resolution simply.

Here's my ad-hominem fallacy. Note that I'm saying this only to make a point.


"Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying."


This is actually both an ad-hom and a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Now, how can this fallacy be used as a valid argument? Simple.It could be a valid argument to prove the resolution "Bobturner can use a logical fallacy." The fallacy and the use thereof serve as my contention.




Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
TruthGen

Pro

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines argument as:
reasons that support a conclusion, sometimes formulated so that the conclusion is deduced from premises.
You don"t say:

.- "Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying"
.- Therefore Bobturner can use a logical fallacy

To justify that Bobturner can indeed use a logical fallacy, it would need to be formulated like:
1-Robturner said "Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying."
2.-"Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying" is a fallacious argument.
3-Therefore Bobturner can use a logical fallacy.

But these statements (1 and 2) are not fallacies, they are true facts.
As it is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica, a fallacy is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness. Whether you can infer true information from that or not doesn"t make it a valid logical argument but a thing to be exposed to the logical argument itself and then, infer information. I"ll try to clarify this:
You don"t actually use the fallacy as an argument, you introduce it as a part of a bigger argument. This is the argument:
"Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying" is a fallacious argument.
Is this a fallacy? I think not.
The topic is "Fallacies are not valid arguments", not "Fallacies cannot be used for valid arguments". Obviously, you can deduce information from fallacies, but as you can see above, it"s not the fallacy what makes the statement (3) true, but the fact that Bobturner SAID the fallacy.

So, Con in this case used (ironically) a fallacious argument to defend fallacies as valid arguments.
Again, as it is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica, a fallacy is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness.
BobTurner

Con

BobTurner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TruthGen

Pro

The argument was meant to discuss the validity of fallacies in a reason-based discussion, that is, show if a fallacy uses valid reasoning, thus defying the very definition of fallacy.

Again: a fallacy is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness.

The problem here is the fact that fallacies mostly appear to give excuses, to soothe the mind by making sense of mismatched ideas, which is called in Psychology as "cognitive dissonance".

Check this webpage for more information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

In a discussion, especially in those in which the main purpose is winning (Such as this debate), fallacies emerge because the main point is not to reach truth, it is to WIN, to convince.
So we find two main points:
1.- The conscious/unconscious urge to win
2.- The need to make consonance

What is the result? Fallacy (among other strategies)

So, fallacies can"t be seen as logical, reason-based arguments to make a point because they are meant to be convincing, not true.
BobTurner

Con

BobTurner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TruthGen

Pro

Fallacies were made to gain authority, or that's what the argumentative theory of reasoning says.

http://www.nytimes.com...;

Wow, when you think about the real truth of fallacies, they become humbling rather than ego-boosters. It's awesome what metacognition can do.

Even though debates seem like a high-society sport (sport for smartypants) it actually is a way to boost your ego and self-confidence through lies that are justified with fallacy.

We are rational beings, yes, but only partially. So if we want real valid arguments we must think about our own mental processes, that is, metacognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fallacies are still not valid arguments in a reason-based debate, but are they valid arguments in a normal traditional debate? Well, as long as you don't get caught, you can freely use them, in fact the main goal of debates is winning, so there's no need to actually be rational. Just be convincing.
BobTurner

Con

BobTurner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TruthGen

Pro

I will now conclude:

Fallacy once again is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness, so you can't really defend they're validity as an argument, although you can deduce information from them and the fact that they have been said.

That would completely deny the validity of fallacies in any reason-based debate.
But let me ask you, are we reasonable enough to make such a debate?
There are many obstacles in our way to that debate: Cognitive dissonance, apophenia, fallacies. Even the structures of debates themselves somehow induces debaters to go against reason just to defend a point.
Nothing looks like it's going to help us achieve that reason-based debate. Even now, debates seem like an irrational verbal fight between two debaters.

Is there anything that can ever help us have a reason-based debate? Well, maybe metacognition is our answer.

Metacognition is our way out of non-valid arguments, those who are (after all) based on fallacy.
BobTurner

Con

BobTurner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Bill-Rabara 2 years ago
Bill-Rabara
Bob Turner lost the first round. The idea is to show a fallacy that uses valid reasoning. He simply used a premise containing an informal fallacy in another non- fallacious argument. This is sidestepping and does not demonstrate ad hominem as a valid way of reasoning.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 2 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Lol, I love it!
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Are you talking about formal or informal fallacies?
Posted by TruthGen 2 years ago
TruthGen
Thanks for the comment. I didn't notice I spelled it incorrectly.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
There's no such thing as a phallacy. It's spelled fallacy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TruthGenBobTurnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture