Debate Fallacies & Arguments

[Praxiteles]

I voted that I just post what I'm thinking - which is true most of the time. If I posted what was thinking all of the time, I'd probably be banned. And maybe arrested.

Seriously though, I think that I, and many others, pick up the skills as they go. This time 6 months ago I would never have considered throwing my hat into the ring - I didn't have the confidence to believe that I could carry an argument. (And I may be deluded about my abilities yet!)

Cheers,
Prax

 

[TheBear]

I voted the first option. Although, I sometimes allow myself to get drawn into off-topic wheel spins, I usually catch myself and get back on-track. I can usually spot a strawman argument a mile away....usually.

 

[LadyShea]

I don't expect anyone who chose #1 to win debating awards or never use bad form...heck I am still learning. I posted this because there are threads here filled with armies of strawmen sliding down the slippery slope of incredulity towards absurdity. My hope is we can TRY to improve just a bit

 

[FordPrefect]

Lady, I hear you, I am in the start, I hope, of an email discussion with AtheistArchon over his essay that was linked to via http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24900.html and we hit a snag. He hasn't responded to my response yet, so I won't speak for him, although I did invite him to this thread to agree with me

Basically, as I see it, we were working with different definitions of Theist and Deist, and it turns out, my def'n came from the Oxford dictionary, and his came from (I don't know where exactly), but probably the Webster or Cambridge - the Cambridge had the def'ns he was using at any rate.

So here we are with two (or three) very reputable sources for the English language, both citing, as it were, and we both come to different conclusions. Now I am guessing he will pull some other cite out of his sleeve and slaughter my argument, but that is all part of the fun, isn't it?

and good luck with the towel

 

[chickenman]

Npeterly's list of ridiculous arguments

1) evolution is socratic not scientific
2) microevolution vs macroevolution (that one's pretty common to all creationists)
3) the "you weren't there" argument
4) the "no new information" argument

i'm sure you guys can list some more

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

You forgot:

0) All scientists are stupid liars.

 

[chickenman]

oh yeah, how could I forget, silly me

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
You forgot:

0) All scientists are stupid liars.

Well, duh! But don't you know that's because of a secret, global Satanic conspiracy rooted in the very heart of evil to perpuate this evil "science" stuff so that Satan and his minions will have an easier time in their quest for domination?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I picked #1, although anyone who follows my posts has noticed whay I lovingly refer to as "Rant Mode." Personally, I follow the debate rules when I have something serious to say, and use Rant Mode when I feel the need to vent at something outrageously stupid. Amazing how few people can tell the difference.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Keep track of what Hank? I'm confused now.

You say point A

I respond three days later to point A with argument B (this is all one box)

You respond to argument B with argument C (now only B/C is in the box, what you wrote in A is deleted.)

I respond to argument C but now I have to look at times through six pages to see what argument A was.

At this time I wish the quotes from point A to C would be carried over.

 

[Outspoken]

chicken you forgot the
7) evolution is totally true though and it has no holes whatsoever.

but that's not Np's ridiculous arument, though it is ridiculous.