Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

[ZombieHorde]

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html">Much more at this link.

[leftstreet]

1. So you're against open debate, eh?

We all know you're unreliable.

How'd I do?

:hi:

[ZombieHorde]

2. You get a star. nt

[mahina]

6. What do vegetarian Zombies say?

[mahina]

7. "Grainnnnns...."

[ZombieHorde]

10. I have never that one before, it is pretty funny. nt

[leftofthedial]

3. You're named after a dead thing

We can't believe a word you say!

[elleng]

4. You have the WRONG NAME!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[ZombieHorde]

13. What should my name be? nt

[mahina]

5. My favorite, reducto ad Hitlerum.

"You're just like Hitler"!

he he

To be used as a last resort, or if you are Hannity.

Feel free to correct my Latin grammar, all you good Latin students.

[sakabatou]

8. I come up a lot against

Begging the question

[Hissyspit]

9. Live and breathe prolepsis.

[Orsino]

11. Nice post, Aristotle. n/t

[Vickers]

12. I know you are but what am I?

:P

[Occam Bandage]

14. No argumentum ad mominem?

Obviously you'd have included it if your momma wasn't so stupid she thinks modus tollens is Latin for when you've gotta pay 75 cents to get on the road.

[Cary]

15. Why are you posting the rightists' play book?

I have a "debate" going on with a buffoon who is trying to tell me that a Paul Krugman blog post has Krugman saying our economic problems are due to too much savings.

The strange thing is that I can say that this buffoon is wrong, and that what Krugman is saying (using non-controversial, black letter economic theory) is that we're in a condition wherein at a 0% interest rate Savings are greater than Investment. And there is an IS graph in the article. The point Krugman is making is clear, although it requires the use of a little brain power to understand Krugman. Clearly, equilibrium occurs currently only with an negative interest rate.

Now this isn't even the point of Krugman's blog post. It's just a demonstration about why currently government spending isn't going to crowd out investment. This buffoon either doesn't understand that, or he's being obtuse.

Of course he is arguing a straw man, declaring himself the winner, and then the rest of the goons jump in and proclaim the buffoon the "winner."

It's the old is he lying or is he stupid conundrum.

Other than shutting this idiot off completely, how do you deal with someone like this? It's a really dumbass game. It's boring. I try to have a serious discussion with these people but holy shit, they're dumber than a bag of hammers.

I guess I answer my own question but I have a real hard time believing that "conservatives" are this stupid and this lost. I'm also seriously afraid of them returning to power and imposing more of their stupidity on us. That's the real reason I engage them. Somehow if I debate them . . .

But I have to say that I've truly come to despise them. It's not good.

[Political Heretic]

16. Nice post, hitler.

[ZombieHorde]

17. Hey, that is reducto ad Hitlerum according to mahina! nt

[mahina]

19. 10 points

Well played.

[Canuckistanian]

18. No true Scotsman believes this stuff