Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Appeal to Popularity

Varrack
Posts: 2,428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 7:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There have been a lot of arguments I've seen that attempt to appeal to popular opinion in order to create some kind of contention. Here's the fallacy:

1. Most people approve of X.
2. Therefore X is true

Although this is illogical, there have been other popular-related arguments that try to edge around this and may or may not qualify as fallacious. Some examples I'm thinking of:

1. "There is a majority consensus that presidential term limits should exist, and keeping them in place would be more satisfying to the people, thus they should exist"
2. "Legalizing X is what most people want, so to legalize it is to represent democracy properly"
3. "More people will suffer for not having X legalized because they really want it to be, and if it is legal it will appease their desires"

For the first one, is citizen satisfaction a good argument? Can it be used to argue for the continued existence of X?

For the second one, if I am arguing that X should not be legalized, but my opponent argues that most people want it to be, how do I respond to that? I can't disprove the fact that it is popular opinion, but I'm hesitant to call them out for committing an ad populum, since that may not be what the fallacy really entails. I think it is somehow wrong though.

I could say that the legalization of X may be the popular opinion but it's not necessarily in the best interest of people despite their own convictions. If it really is an argument then it can't be a very strong one, because if I have evidence that X is bad it should sound enough to negate popular convictions.

Any input?
Varrack
Posts: 2,428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 8:17:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2015 8:09:36 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
You seem to know quite a bit about fallacies. Wanna join the Fallacy Police?

Did you make that up just now?
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 8:20:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2015 8:17:40 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/13/2015 8:09:36 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
You seem to know quite a bit about fallacies. Wanna join the Fallacy Police?

Did you make that up just now?

Nope, I actually tried to create a fallacy police once:

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
DDO Discord Link:
https://discordapp.com...
Varrack
Posts: 2,428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:05:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2015 2:01:44 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Can you do a post on the Appeal to Logic Fallacy?

You've already done one on that.

But no one is going to post on this anyway..
sadolite
Posts: 9,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:02:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2015 7:59:04 PM, Varrack wrote:
There have been a lot of arguments I've seen that attempt to appeal to popular opinion in order to create some kind of contention. Here's the fallacy:

1. Most people approve of X.
2. Therefore X is true

Although this is illogical, there have been other popular-related arguments that try to edge around this and may or may not qualify as fallacious. Some examples I'm thinking of:

1. "There is a majority consensus that presidential term limits should exist, and keeping them in place would be more satisfying to the people, thus they should exist"
2. "Legalizing X is what most people want, so to legalize it is to represent democracy properly"
3. "More people will suffer for not having X legalized because they really want it to be, and if it is legal it will appease their desires"

For the first one, is citizen satisfaction a good argument? Can it be used to argue for the continued existence of X?

For the second one, if I am arguing that X should not be legalized, but my opponent argues that most people want it to be, how do I respond to that? I can't disprove the fact that it is popular opinion, but I'm hesitant to call them out for committing an ad populum, since that may not be what the fallacy really entails. I think it is somehow wrong though.

I could say that the legalization of X may be the popular opinion but it's not necessarily in the best interest of people despite their own convictions. If it really is an argument then it can't be a very strong one, because if I have evidence that X is bad it should sound enough to negate popular convictions.

Any input?

It's called MOB rule or Democracy if you will