Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Are Logical Fallacies Acceptable in Debate?

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:06:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:03:51 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Why would I listen to someone with under a thousand posts?! Your argument sucks.

Ad Hominem. :P
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:38:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

So it's really.."Is my opponent going to call my BS, or will I be able o sneak in some clever garbage."

Debating isn't always about being right. It's about battle tactic. You can win a debate and be terribly wrong, just as long as your opponent is none-the wiser.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:42:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Informal fallacies aren't a real thing. They're very often good evidential arguments.

"How do you know electrons have a negative charge?"

"A Ph.D physicist told me they do."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:47:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Are you saying that we should accept this as true because you, yourself said it?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 11:45:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:42:37 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Informal fallacies aren't a real thing. They're very often good evidential arguments.

"How do you know electrons have a negative charge?"

"A Ph.D physicist told me they do."

Informal fallacies are a real thing. Just because a Ph.D. physician told you they do doesn't prove that they do. The Ph.D. physicist could be wrong. Your analogy only looks good because electrons having a negative charge is something they teach us in elementary school. Nevertheless, it's not correct only because a Ph.D. told you. In a formal debate, you have to prove your claim.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 11:47:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Logical fallacies are never acceptable to use. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. So even if you're speaking casually and someone tells you something that results from a fallacious argument, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. The only difference is your method. You probably wouldn't come right out and say "you're being fallacious" in a casual conversation. It helps to show where their error in reasoning lies, rather than just accusing them of fallacious thinking.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:17:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Rhetoric is just the art of effective discourse, it facilitates the ability to inform, persuade or motivate and does not necessarily entail fallacy or misrepresentation. I'm not sure where you get the idea that rhetoric is a bad thing in and of itself, bad rhetoric, or misleading rhetoric is bad, but those are not characteristic of rhetoric, there is also good rhetoric and factual rhetoric. Rhetoric is a matter of skillfully fitting your argument to the situation and audience in order to enure effectiveness.

Like an argument, there can be good arguments and bad arguments, but an argument doesn't necessarily entain a fallacy or a misrepresentation, that would just be a bad argument. The same applies to rhetoric.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:19:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Almost all arguments are fallacious. "Strawmanning" is almost necessary because you cannot tell every nuance of your opponent's arguments in a single round. The aim is to as accurately represent your opponents case as possible, then dismantle it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:20:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:19:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Almost all arguments are fallacious. "Strawmanning" is almost necessary because you cannot tell every nuance of your opponent's arguments in a single round. The aim is to as accurately represent your opponents case as possible, then dismantle it.

Dunno why I pressed review so early...

That said, you should aim to be logically thorough as society is now logic-tuned, so a rational argument is most convincing. However, the right tone and form is most important now.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:32:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 11:45:41 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Informal fallacies are a real thing. Just because a Ph.D. physician told you they do doesn't prove that they do. The Ph.D. physicist could be wrong. Your analogy only looks good because electrons having a negative charge is something they teach us in elementary school. Nevertheless, it's not correct only because a Ph.D. told you. In a formal debate, you have to prove your claim.

You're arguing past me. The physicist could be wrong, but the fact that a well informed scientist believes X in his field of study (even better, a consensus of well informed scientists) should significantly raise your probability estimate that X is true. So why should we call it a fallacy?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:08:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

I disagree. I don't expect judges to drop their rationality at the door. I know I don't, and I don't accept blatantly false statements as true just because someone fit it into their character limit.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:10:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you can back it up with a source or something then it would make it look more... let's see what's the word I looking for... oh yes true...it would make the logical fallacy seem more true and that's meaning that you're opponent is less likely to call you out on it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:37:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 11:47:50 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Logical fallacies are never acceptable to use. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. So even if you're speaking casually and someone tells you something that results from a fallacious argument, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. The only difference is your method. You probably wouldn't come right out and say "you're being fallacious" in a casual conversation. It helps to show where their error in reasoning lies, rather than just accusing them of fallacious thinking.

The Fool: Bang on.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:26:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:08:44 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

I disagree. I don't expect judges to drop their rationality at the door. I know I don't, and I don't accept blatantly false statements as true just because someone fit it into their character limit.

Hear Here!

I hate the "he dropped this" argument: if its a silly argument, then it can be dropped. If it's important, then his lack of picking it up is important. However, if one drops a silly argument, and focuses on winning a more important one (prima facie or not), then one should win the debate, assuming he convincingly makes a point clear.

Debating is about pedagogy, and as such people making silly arguments to increase their count of arguments should go AGAINST them, dropped or not. If I hear one more person argue for human rights because cultural relativism is true, or feminism is false because women have the vote and should stop complaining, or gay marriage is wrong because "marriage means man and woman" (and that's it) then I'll go mad.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:55:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:32:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/14/2013 11:45:41 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Informal fallacies are a real thing. Just because a Ph.D. physician told you they do doesn't prove that they do. The Ph.D. physicist could be wrong. Your analogy only looks good because electrons having a negative charge is something they teach us in elementary school. Nevertheless, it's not correct only because a Ph.D. told you. In a formal debate, you have to prove your claim.

You're arguing past me. The physicist could be wrong, but the fact that a well informed scientist believes X in his field of study (even better, a consensus of well informed scientists) should significantly raise your probability estimate that X is true. So why should we call it a fallacy?

The Fool:

Estimate based on what? Probability out of what? Just out of nothing probability?

What is it a Probability Out of. 70 out of a 100. 2 out of a 100. That is, By which means are you basing probability., to even be a probability at all?
or are have you simply been relying on faith that someone else, has it figured out?

Have you simple been really on pure Faith, or blind trust.

Its much more complicated Then that my friend. For we have had a Noble Prize given to the scientific Discovery of Lobotomizing people. which was IN HUMANE and morally Wrong to begin with. There was incredible scientific consensus that it wasn't harmful. AND THEY WHERE ALL WRONG.

It is only a few years ago when NEARLY ALL Physicist thought that the galaxy would Rebound by gravitational Pull back into itself. Low and beyond, Not only is it not rebounding but Ever accelerating in the exactly opposite way. This is not even Long ago.
Would you say the probability of it being a fact was more probably then and that it is now the Opposite a.k.a. Negative probability? <(8J)
It was of scientific consensus in the " positivist era" which is still very popular now but its called physical-ism.

Many scientist also think you don't exist. And that your Consciousness is an Illusion.
You love your hate, the positive feeling you get when Laughing or enjoying something, is not true, But simply an illusion.. That you are not conscious of.
or that someone is only true if they can see it too. So all your experiences when you were alone are Not true and not false. (Which doesn't actually say anything at all)
But Many actually believe it. Just because someone with a Title said so.

But They are For you and you don't know it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:06:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:55:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:32:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/14/2013 11:45:41 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Informal fallacies are a real thing. Just because a Ph.D. physician told you they do doesn't prove that they do. The Ph.D. physicist could be wrong. Your analogy only looks good because electrons having a negative charge is something they teach us in elementary school. Nevertheless, it's not correct only because a Ph.D. told you. In a formal debate, you have to prove your claim.

You're arguing past me. The physicist could be wrong, but the fact that a well informed scientist believes X in his field of study (even better, a consensus of well informed scientists) should significantly raise your probability estimate that X is true. So why should we call it a fallacy?

The Fool:

Estimate based on what? Probability out of what? Just out of nothing probability?

What is it a Probability Out of. 70 out of a 100. 2 out of a 100. That is, By which means are you basing probability., to even be a probability at all?
or are have you simply been relying on faith that someone else, has it figured out?

Have you simple been really on pure Faith, or blind trust.

Its much more complicated Then that my friend. For we have had a Noble Prize given to the scientific Discovery of Lobotomizing people. which was IN HUMANE and morally Wrong to begin with. There was incredible scientific consensus that it wasn't harmful. AND THEY WHERE ALL WRONG.

It is only a few years ago when NEARLY ALL Physicist thought that the galaxy would Rebound by gravitational Pull back into itself. Low and beyond, Not only is it not rebounding but Ever accelerating in the exactly opposite way. This is not even Long ago.
Would you say the probability of it being a fact was more probably then and that it is now the Opposite a.k.a. Negative probability? <(8J)
It was of scientific consensus in the " positivist era" which is still very popular now but its called physical-ism.

Many scientist also think you don't exist. And that your Consciousness is an Illusion.
You love your hate, the positive feeling you get when Laughing or enjoying something, is not true, But simply an illusion.. That you are not conscious of.
or that someone is only true if they can see it too. So all your experiences when you were alone are Not true and not false. (Which doesn't actually say anything at all)
But Many actually believe it. Just because someone with a Title said so.



But They are For you and you don't know it.

We needn't to know the precise probability of some explanation being true to know if it has increased or decreased.
Connoisseur
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:24:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Absolutely acceptable.

Just like murder.
This is a concoction of poetic rhyme,
This is a signature, written in good time,
If beauty were criminal this would be a crime,
Thank you for reading this poem of mine.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 8:38:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:26:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/14/2013 1:08:44 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

I disagree. I don't expect judges to drop their rationality at the door. I know I don't, and I don't accept blatantly false statements as true just because someone fit it into their character limit.

Hear Here!

He says s I hate the "he dropped this" argument: if it"s a silly argument, then it can be dropped. If it's important, then his lack of picking it up is important. However, if one drops a silly argument, and focuses on winning a more important one (prima facie or not), then one should win the debate, assuming he convincingly makes a point clear.

The Fool: This is true. But if my English is correct here. It appears to me that "@ first glance" is actually Less Syllable"s.(3) Then Prima facie (4) It may be my French but it sounds Wnopian.

Debating is about pedagogy, and as such people making silly arguments to increase their count of arguments should go AGAINST them, dropped or not.

The Fool: The problem is that people actually believe them, many do not know they are silly. This teaching has an averse effect by being a Nest whole for Sophist. It Creates expert Lie-rs. Mini-Machiavellianist, who by false affirmation by votes start to believe there own, lies.

&#1342;_&#1342;


If I hear one more person argue for human rights because cultural relativism is true, or feminism is false because women have the vote and should stop complaining, or gay marriage is wrong because "marriage means man and woman" (and that's it) then I'll go mad.

The Fool: How did these a small group of westerners Discover the human rights, that Western Ideologist, mostly Rulers/politician and /or Religious establishments have known more clearly and distinctly then Humans do about their own nature.

Forget the scientific method. Lets use the Ideological method. We don't even to do work or think about anything. Lets just use Terms to define are selves as in the eternal bliss of happiness, and all our problems are solved. I cant be the first one to have thought of that. You damn fools. All of you!.

<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:30:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

Interesting way to look at it, I think it just depends on the type of person you are, but this is a very interesting argument.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:31:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Are you saying that we should accept this as true because you, yourself said it?

This is why I said that I personally do not think so, I was careful to put I think before most of what I said, but I see how you used my Ipse Dixit fallacy against me, lol.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 9:34:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:32:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/14/2013 11:45:41 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Informal fallacies are a real thing. Just because a Ph.D. physician told you they do doesn't prove that they do. The Ph.D. physicist could be wrong. Your analogy only looks good because electrons having a negative charge is something they teach us in elementary school. Nevertheless, it's not correct only because a Ph.D. told you. In a formal debate, you have to prove your claim.

You're arguing past me. The physicist could be wrong, but the fact that a well informed scientist believes X in his field of study (even better, a consensus of well informed scientists) should significantly raise your probability estimate that X is true. So why should we call it a fallacy?

You are bringing up something that is factual (the negative electron example), but it would be fallacious to say one's opinion is more valid due to their education, since opinions aren't much of anything without reasonable justification for that opinion.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 10:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:26:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/14/2013 1:08:44 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

I disagree. I don't expect judges to drop their rationality at the door. I know I don't, and I don't accept blatantly false statements as true just because someone fit it into their character limit.

Hear Here!

I hate the "he dropped this" argument: if its a silly argument, then it can be dropped. If it's important, then his lack of picking it up is important. However, if one drops a silly argument, and focuses on winning a more important one (prima facie or not), then one should win the debate, assuming he convincingly makes a point clear.

Debating is about pedagogy, and as such people making silly arguments to increase their count of arguments should go AGAINST them, dropped or not. If I hear one more person argue for human rights because cultural relativism is true, or feminism is false because women have the vote and should stop complaining, or gay marriage is wrong because "marriage means man and woman" (and that's it) then I'll go mad.

I'd like to believe this, but I really think debate is about persuasion. You have to know your audience, and craft your arguments to fit the audience, IMHO. The main goal of a debate is to win.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 10:01:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:08:44 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

I disagree. I don't expect judges to drop their rationality at the door. I know I don't, and I don't accept blatantly false statements as true just because someone fit it into their character limit.

I fully agree with this statement. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:41:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:20:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:19:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Almost all arguments are fallacious. "Strawmanning" is almost necessary because you cannot tell every nuance of your opponent's arguments in a single round. The aim is to as accurately represent your opponents case as possible, then dismantle it.

Dunno why I pressed review so early...

That said, you should aim to be logically thorough as society is now logic-tuned, so a rational argument is most convincing. However, the right tone and form is most important now.

I would disagree. Even if the society as a whole is now logic-tuned (doubtable), it does not mean that a rational argument, presumably constructed on the basis of logic, is the most convincing. Rational argument rarely elicits a strong emotional reaction from the audience, while rhetoric would successfully arouse spectators responses. To win a debate (the ultimate goal), you need reader fight on your side. How would you convince readers to support you without making them emotionally involved? The best argument should draw its strength from both rational arguments and elegant rhetoric.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 10:16:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 10:00:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 4:26:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/14/2013 1:08:44 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:36:11 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:58:33 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
In a non-formal/casual debate, are logical fallacies acceptable to use?

I personally do not think so, I think that rhetoric is a very dangerous and lethal form of persuasion for the driveling masses, while most skilled debaters realize rhetoric is only meant for individual speech, a lot of what you see in even Presidential debates isn't really skilled debate, it's rhetoric. I think this is unacceptable due to the Ipse Dixit fallacy.

Anything is acceptable to use. The question is...will your opponent call you on it?
People aren't supposed to vote on whether or not the argument is irrational. They're supposed to be concerned with how the opponent addresses your logical fallacy.

if it's left untouched, it' a dropped argument...fallacy or not...and should be considered a winning argument.

I disagree. I don't expect judges to drop their rationality at the door. I know I don't, and I don't accept blatantly false statements as true just because someone fit it into their character limit.

Hear Here!

I hate the "he dropped this" argument: if its a silly argument, then it can be dropped. If it's important, then his lack of picking it up is important. However, if one drops a silly argument, and focuses on winning a more important one (prima facie or not), then one should win the debate, assuming he convincingly makes a point clear.

Debating is about pedagogy, and as such people making silly arguments to increase their count of arguments should go AGAINST them, dropped or not. If I hear one more person argue for human rights because cultural relativism is true, or feminism is false because women have the vote and should stop complaining, or gay marriage is wrong because "marriage means man and woman" (and that's it) then I'll go mad.

I'd like to believe this, but I really think debate is about persuasion. You have to know your audience, and craft your arguments to fit the audience, IMHO. The main goal of a debate is to win.

Apart from the last sentence (which still can be incorporated), this is what I'd say is essential to being a good educator as well as debater. The 'winning' is just competitive pedagogy: being able to present your case with more clarity and skill than your opponent. Contradictions or missed out information is the key way of winning a debate in writing, but in speech it is seriously just how clearly can you present the information, as the audience cannot judge and look at it at their own pace. Boring speeches lose marks, boring voice loses marks, etc. etc. etc.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...