I've got something to say. It is a new pet peeve. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate logical fallacies, and I really really really really hate it when people entered a thread, use logical fallacies, and expect to be taken up as having a logical and viable argument.
When you get into debate there are a lot of things you need to think about. One of which is wether or not you are really qualified to open your mouth. If you don't know the topic well, or if your opinions are based on ignorace instead of research....you need to keep your mouth shut.
On the topic of logical fallacies though there are some pretty common ones out there that you see on the net.
You have Slippery Slope which is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. A basic example is this: If A occurs then the chances increase that B will occur.
You have Ad Hominem which involves one of the following:
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. This comes from Dictionary.com. An example would be :"Well what do you know about religion? Your a furrie douchbag! Yiff in hell furfag! Another would be saying "You are probably a fat whiny teenager anyway."
You have Hasty Generalization. It is: X is true of A, B and C. Therefore X is true of everything, or one finds a commonality in a few things and then generalizes to assume that it is also true for all things in the same class.
That is from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/hasty_generalization.htm
An example would be a person observing that a few Atheists are openly whiny and bitchy. So after seeing that the person making that observation makes a grand sweeping generalization and decides that all Atheists are openly whiny and bitchy. That is a Hasty Generalization.
You have False Analogy. A false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument. I'll steal wiki's perfect example. "The universe is like an intricate watch.
A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.
Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator"( taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy )
Those are just a few that I see all the time. Anyway where I am getting at? I think that people, when debating should even when online, not resort to using logical fallacies. They are annoying, they only perpetuate ignorance, and they just don't work.
Anyway...what is your take on this? How many of these do you see online on a regular basis? Many? Few? How do you go about debunking a person for using a logical fallacy? Do you tell them what they are doing, or just try to rip apart thier attempted argument?
Lastly...in your opinion, what do you like to see in a debate? What annoys you in a debate? What kind of ways do you think people should argue/debate?
When you get into debate there are a lot of things you need to think about. One of which is wether or not you are really qualified to open your mouth. If you don't know the topic well, or if your opinions are based on ignorace instead of research....you need to keep your mouth shut.
On the topic of logical fallacies though there are some pretty common ones out there that you see on the net.
You have Slippery Slope which is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. A basic example is this: If A occurs then the chances increase that B will occur.
You have Ad Hominem which involves one of the following:
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. This comes from Dictionary.com. An example would be :"Well what do you know about religion? Your a furrie douchbag! Yiff in hell furfag! Another would be saying "You are probably a fat whiny teenager anyway."
You have Hasty Generalization. It is: X is true of A, B and C. Therefore X is true of everything, or one finds a commonality in a few things and then generalizes to assume that it is also true for all things in the same class.
That is from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/hasty_generalization.htm
An example would be a person observing that a few Atheists are openly whiny and bitchy. So after seeing that the person making that observation makes a grand sweeping generalization and decides that all Atheists are openly whiny and bitchy. That is a Hasty Generalization.
You have False Analogy. A false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument. I'll steal wiki's perfect example. "The universe is like an intricate watch.
A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.
Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator"( taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy )
Those are just a few that I see all the time. Anyway where I am getting at? I think that people, when debating should even when online, not resort to using logical fallacies. They are annoying, they only perpetuate ignorance, and they just don't work.
Anyway...what is your take on this? How many of these do you see online on a regular basis? Many? Few? How do you go about debunking a person for using a logical fallacy? Do you tell them what they are doing, or just try to rip apart thier attempted argument?
Lastly...in your opinion, what do you like to see in a debate? What annoys you in a debate? What kind of ways do you think people should argue/debate?
