Logical-Fallacies-and-the-Art-of-Debate

LogicalFallaciesandtheArtofDebateContents:IntroductionSowhylearnlogicalfallaciesatall?LogicasaformofrhetoricCommittingyourveryownlogicalfallaciesThelistoffallacies:oargumentumadantiquitatemoargumentumadhominemoargumentumadignorantiamoargumentumadlogicamoargumentumadmisericordiamoargumentumadnauseamoargumentumadnumerumoargumentumadpopulumoargumentumadverecundiamocirculusindemonstrandoocomplexquestionodictosimpliciteronaturalisticfallacyonature,appealtoononsequituropetitioprincipiioposthocergopropterhocoredherringoslipperyslopeostrawmanotuquoqueIntroductionThisisaguidetousinglogicalfallaciesindebate.AndwhenIsayusing,Idon'tmeanjustpointingthemoutwhenopposingdebaterscommitthem--Imeandeliberatelycommittingthemoneself,orfindingwaystotransformfallaciousargumentsintoperfectlygoodones.Debateis,fortunatelyornot,anexerciseinpersuasion,wit,andrhetoric,notjustlogic.Inadebateformatthatlimitseachdebater'sspeakingtime,itissimplynotreasonabletoexpecteverypropositionorconclusiontofollowpreciselyandrigorouslyfromaclearsetofpremisesstatedattheoutset.Instead,debatershavetobringtogethervariousfacts,insights,andvaluesthatothersshareorcanbepersuadedtoaccept,andthenshowthatthoseideasleadmoreorlessplausiblytoaconclusion.Logicisausefultoolinthisprocess,butitisnottheonlytool--afterall,plausibilityisafairlysubjectivematterthatdoesnotfollowstrictlogicalrules.Ultimately,thejudgeinadebateroundhastodecidewhichside'spositionismoreplausibleinlightoftheargumentsgiven--andthejudgeisrequiredtopickoneofthosesides,eveniflogicalonedictatesthatwedonotknowistheanswertothequestionathand.Besides,let'sbehonest:debateisnotjustaboutfindingtruth,it'salsoaboutwinning.Ifyouthinkafallaciousargumentcanslidebyandpersuadethejudgetovoteforyou,you'regoingtomakeit,right?Thetrickisnotgettingcaught.Sowhylearnlogicalfallaciesatall?Icanthinkofacoupleofgoodreasons.First,itmakesyoulooksmart.Ifyoucannotonlyshowthattheoppositionhasmadeanerrorinreasoning,butyoucangivethaterroranameaswell(inLatin!),itshowsthatyoucanthinkonyourfeetandthatyouunderstandtheopposition'sargumentpossiblybetterthantheydo.Second,andmaybemoreimportantly,pointingoutalogicalfallacyisawayofremovinganargumentfromthedebateratherthanjustweakeningit.Muchofthetime,adebaterwillrespondtoanargumentbysimplystatingacounterargumentshowingwhytheoriginalargumentisnotterriblysignificantincomparisontootherconcerns,orshouldn'tbetakenseriously,orwhatever.Thatkindofresponseisfine,exceptthattheoriginalargumentstillremainsinthedebate,albeitinalesspersuasiveform,andtheoppositionisfreetomountarhetoricaloffensivesayingwhyit'simportantafterall.Ontheotherhand,ifyoucanshowthattheoriginalargumentactuallycommitsalogicalfallacy,youputtheoppositioninthepositionofjustifyingwhytheiroriginalargumentshouldbeconsideredatall.Iftheycan'tcomeupwithadarngoodreason,thentheargumentisactuallyremovedfromtheround.LogicasaformofrhetoricUnfortunately,theaccountIhavejustgivenisabitidealized.Noteveryjudgewillimmediatelyrecognizetheimportanceofthelogicalfallacyyou'vepointedoutinyouropposition'sargument.Evenifalogicianwouldimmediatelyaccepttheaccuracyofyourpoint,inadebateroundit'sthejudgethatcounts.Itisthereforenotenoughsimplytopointoutalogicalfallacyandmoveon;thereisanarttopointingoutlogicalfallaciesinyouropposition'sarguments.HereareafewstrategiesI'vefoundusefulinpointingoutlogicalfallaciesinaneffectivemanner:Statethenameofthelogicalfallacy,preferablyinbothLatinandEnglish,andmakesureyouusethephraselogicalfallacy.Why?Becauseitisimportanttoimpressoneveryonethatthisisnomerecounterargumentyouaremaking,norareyoujustlabellingtheopposition'sviewpointasfallaciousforrhetoricaleffect.Statingthefallacy'sLatinnamehelps,becausesomepeoplejustaren'tsuresomething'safallacyunlessAristotleorsomeotherauthoritycalleditone.Saysomethinglike,TheoppositionpointsoutthatthevoterssupportedXbyawidemargininlastyear'sreferendum.Butthisisjustthelogicalfallacyofargumentumadpopulum,appealtopublicopinion!Telleverybodywhatthefallacymeansandwhyitiswrong.Butbecareful--youhavetodothiswithoutsoundingpedantic.Youshouldstatethefallacy'smeaningasthoughyouarereiteratingwhatyouassumeyourintelligentjudgealreadyknows.Tocontinuetheexampleabove,say,Itdoesn'tmatterhowmanypeopleagreewithyou,thatdoesn'tmeanit'snecessarilyright.There,nowyou'vedefinedforeveryonewhat'sfallaciousaboutargumentumadpopulum.Giveareallyobviousexampleofwhythefallacyisincorrect.Preferably,theexampleshouldalsobeanunfavorableanalogyfortheopposition'sproposal.Thus:Lastcentury,themajorityofpeopleinsomestatesthoughtslaverywasacceptable,butthatdidn'tmakeitso!Finally,pointoutwhythelogicalfallacymatterstothedebateround.Thisfallaciousargumentshouldbethrownoutofthedebate.Andthatmeansthattheopposition'sonlyremainingargumentforXis....CommittingyourveryownlogicalfallaciesIngeneral,ofcourse,it'sagoodideatoavoidlogicalfallaciesifatallpossible,becauseagooddebaterwillalmostalwayscatchyou.Itisespeciallyimportanttoavoidobviouslogicalfallaciesliketheoneabove(argumentumadpopulum),becausetheyarevulnerabletosuchpowerful(andpersuasive)refutat