Uphill Battle
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2005
- 18,279
- 1,221
- 48
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whew!!!! Better UB than I. Bye Bye.I await your attempts at meeting your burdens of proof UB.
why change the status Quo?Yep. There's a "LOL," a smiley face, and "Ad Hominem" and "Strawman" both in there as expected. Nothing to discuss, though.
whats a portraint?Is that a self portraint UB?
here. This should help.
It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments. Here are a few strategies I've found useful in pointing out logical fallacies in an effective manner:"evidence"
- State the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both Latin and English, and make sure you use the phrase "logical fallacy." Why? Because it is important to impress on everyone that this is no mere counterargument you are making, nor are you just labelling the opposition's viewpoint as "fallacious" for rhetorical effect. Stating the fallacy's Latin name helps, because some people just aren't sure something's a fallacy unless Aristotle or some other authority called it one. Say something like, "The opposition points out that the voters supported X by a wide margin in last year's referendum. But this is just the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appeal to public opinion!"
- Tell everybody what the fallacy means and why it is wrong. But be careful -- you have to do this without sounding pedantic. You should state the fallacy's meaning as though you are reiterating what you assume your intelligent judge already knows. To continue the example above, say, "It doesn't matter how many people agree with you, that doesn't mean it's necessarily right." There, now you've defined for everyone what's fallacious about argumentum ad populum.
- Give a really obvious example of why the fallacy is incorrect. Preferably, the example should also be an unfavorable analogy for the opposition's proposal. Thus: "Last century, the majority of people in some states thought slavery was acceptable, but that didn't make it so!"
- Finally, point out why the logical fallacy matters to the debate round. "This fallacious argument should be thrown out of the debate. And that means that the opposition's only remaining argument for X is...."
whats a portraint?
sorry, if you are going to use logical fallacies, it behooves you to to use them properly. If you tried to use logical fallacies in your manner, in a legitimate debate, your opponent would chew you up and spit you out.There are far too many in the arguments here to do all this each and everytime. I used to do this until it got so unreasonable to continue to do so given the sheer volumne.
People can use google to look them up if they really want to know all of the information above.
Proof of what?I guess I will be awaiting proof for some time to come . .. nothing much here . .
who the heck knows anymore!Proof of what?
TLF? you up for it?Hi Sun
I'd love to take on the "known for all ages" claim regarding universal authority to task in a formal debate to any takers.
oh, classic. let me know if it happens, I want to be on the peanut gallery for THAT one.TLF? you up for it?
I'm up for it, TLF Chesterton any of the Romans.oh, classic. let me know if it happens, I want to be on the peanut gallery for THAT one.
I've posted the challenge for any takers...I'm up for it, TLF Chesterton any of the Romans.
Like taking candy from a baby!I'm up for it, TLF Chesterton any of the Romans.
Oh Goodie!!!! A taker!!!Like taking candy from a baby!
Be more specific, please. What point do you want to debate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?