Logical Fallacies--Not a Debate

[mushroom]

I've noticed a lot of people using terms like "Begging the Question," "Fallacy from Ignorance," and so on. I haven't made much noise about it, but I have seen several long posts about other posts' fallacies that actually name an inapplicable fallacy, often multiple times. This is *very* much bothering me, but I really don't have the time to go through and correct every single one, back up every single correction, and so on.

So, I'd like to propose that all debaters be strongly encouraged to cite a source when pointing out a fallacy (the exact page on which the fallacy is listed, if possible; if not possible, then quote the definition) until they are absolutely and completely familiar with a particular fallacy. This would include all current regulars (for at least a couple of weeks) and all current and future irregular or new debaters. I also think all posters should make themselves familiar with basic fallacies, so they are less likely to commit them.

I realize this would be a fair amount of work for all people posting on this board, but I strongly believe it will increase the quality of the debates on this board by a good amount; also, a good knowledge of basic logic is something I believe everyone should have. Humans are constantly trying to convince each other of many, many things, and knowing when an argument just isn't valid can help a person decide what and what not to believe. I'm not an expert on logic or fallacies by a long shot, but I'm willing to put in the time needed to implement this proposal. Do any of the rest of you find this reasonable?

Here are a couple of resources with definitions of fallacies. These are some of the top few listed on Google; if anyone can suggest other pertinent pages on the topic, please do so. This list will be made more comprehensive at another time.

The List:

www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (Oddly enough, this is part of a site refuting Holocaust denial. *shrugs* It's pretty clear and readable, and its information fits with my general knowledge of logic.)

www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html (I'm not sure about the validity of this site's information yet; as the fallacies seem to be listed under the Latin titles, I don't recognize them.)

[Crystal]

My mind blanks out the moment I see those capitalized words. Honestly. I'm in fact more inclined to agree with the people who explain things in laymen's terms. I skip most posts with things like 'fallacies' in. I fell asleep reading the constitution of my own country. As far as I went in, I think I've broken three or four of the 'laws' already.

Yes, it certainly would be very helpful. ^______^

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

... I've actually had that conversation before...

[TheEaterofWorlds]

I sort of agree and disagree. On one hand, it's not really fair to try and debate against someone who isn't really debating with logic or anything tangible. Some people really do debate poorly and it doesn't hurt to point out how, and explain why it doesn't work.

On the other hand, labeling something you don't want to have to deal with a falicy so you can avoid talking about it isn't any good either.

Also, when someone says that there is a falicy in another person's debate, they need to explain how and then move on to talking about what the person said, not how they said it.

The thing is, in debate class we do call people out who are not debating properly, and many people here are used to more structured and logical debates. Some people don't know how to debate properly because they haven't learned how yet, and these people need to understand there are somethings you do and some things you don't.

The most imortant thing in a debate though, is to debate using facts. Don't use emotions, don't bait people or ask questions designed to get a certain type of reaction (A loaded question) but don't argue based solely on the way the other person debates, that's not proper either.

[Linnen Malfoy]

For debating I like to think you get out what you put in. If you want people to see what you're trying to convey, you need to show them proof. If you simply say "Well x says yes, so therefore...", then don't except anyone to jump upon the bandwagon and believe you 100%.

However, I suppose that doesn't mean that just because someone debates in a professional style doesn't mean that they are not perhaps posing a legimite ideal.

...no idea what I'm talking about, but that website is really intresting.

[Smiley]

Very interesting websites, with clear-cut definitions and easy-to-understand examples.

Looking at what TEOW posted, do you think we should have a formal debate every week (or so), involving people who are experienced in formal debates, so that those who aren't as experienced can learn first-hand?

We all seem to agree that our debates could be more organized, and I think this could help. Just a thought.

[Rider]

Princess said:

... I've actually had that conversation before...

[glow=red,2,300]Try going to a Catholic school. You won't believe how many literalists come from the Catholic middle schools. The fact that I went to public school spared me the same fate. Now my teachers have to teach the kids not to take the Bible literally.

Rant complete.

As for fallacies, I'm not a good debater. I'll admit that up front. I'll use fallacies a lot without meaning to. [/glow]