PDA

View Full Version : This town deserves a better class of criminal



BigDog
08-30-2013, 04:23 PM
Hello there fellow forum goer!

I've been looking around these boards lately and i've noticed a problem. Not with trolls, but with something far more sinister. I've noticed fallacious arguments and generally poor debate tactics. Through the magic of Wikipedia, i have some information to share with you that will make YOU a more savvy debater.

First lets start with everyone's favorite misused fallacious argument with a quick excerpt:

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1.Person 1 has position X.
2.Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

While we are on the subject of a "bad" argument, let's see what constitutes a good argument:
--Yes, i am aware that this image is a thumbnail, if you click on it, it should open up to a larger size--
1018

Right up there at the top is what we should aim for to prove our enemies wrong! Let's focus on the central point and provide evidence and examples when necessary to show that "other guy(gal)" is just plain wrong.

This has been a PSA from Logic!. I hope to argue with YOU in a thread soon!

HyenaNipples
08-30-2013, 04:36 PM
I applaud thee sir, and name you Champion of Lost Causes.

kirkwb
08-30-2013, 04:49 PM
Who's barking now?

ouphie
08-30-2013, 04:54 PM
I wish this stuff was mandatory in public schools. Logic and debate, how I have missed thee. Maybe this could be a weekly thing. "Friday's Logic Lunch Break" or the like. Thanks for the post BigDog!

FracturedEgo
08-30-2013, 04:55 PM
I vote that this should be listed as best thread on the Hex forums.

ossuary
08-30-2013, 05:39 PM
"Wait'll they get a load of me."

Also, "Who's the man now, dog?"

zadies
08-30-2013, 06:16 PM
I try not to do that, but then again given half the time when i ask for an explaination i don't get one.

d00dz
08-30-2013, 06:35 PM
I salute you, good sir.

Reminds me of a certain argumentative person this past week who refuses to relent and throws blanket statements all around.

Wolfe
08-30-2013, 06:38 PM
Sticky? ;)

Malicus
08-30-2013, 07:35 PM
I am not a huge fan of poor debate in general but I do have to admit I prefer it over people screaming straw man and ad hominem back and forth at each other.

BigDog
08-30-2013, 07:50 PM
I am not a huge fan of poor debate in general but I do have to admit I prefer it over people screaming straw man and ad hominem back and forth at each other.

The hope is that instead of falling prey to these pitfalls, one party wants to win the argument enough that they craft the holy grail of the internet: a well thought out, rational and researched response crafted in a manner to address all the opposing view's salient points.

Unlikely? Yes. But a man can still dream.

Gorgol
08-30-2013, 07:56 PM
my opinion is fact. /thread
Am I doing this right?

blakegrandon
08-31-2013, 05:42 AM
I am not a huge fan of poor debate in general but I do have to admit I prefer it over people screaming straw man and ad hominem back and forth at each other.

Stop screaming at me, bro.


The hope is that instead of falling prey to these pitfalls, one party wants to win the argument enough that they craft the holy grail of the internet: a well thought out, rational and researched response crafted in a manner to address all the opposing view's salient points.
Unlikely? Yes. But a man can still dream.

You can fill one hand with wishes and the other with shit, which do you think will happen first?

This is the internet where 99% of the people will hide behind anonymity so that they CAN engage in straw mat arguments and ad hominem attacks. Me, I don't mind busting out a straw mat argument or an ad hominem attack every now and then, but really they don't bother me as much as the debate police.

I'm all for a good debate and hell I'm all for great grammar and stuff, but at some point people need to loosen up.

Why so serious?

The_Wine_Gnat
08-31-2013, 08:35 AM
I'm pretty sure blakegrandson just proved how a strawhat argument works. Correct me if I'm wrong here guys, but instead of addressing the core wish of BigDog, he made up a number (in this case 99%), then proceeded to state that he doesn't care. Yet he contractdicts himself shortly afterwards by saying he does care "... but really they don't bother me as much as the debate police", then reserves position and says to not take forum debate so serious ("why so serious"?)

Tell me, where does my argument lie on the pyramid? Hopefully not the ass-hat (which made me laugh pretty hard)

blakegrandon
08-31-2013, 08:39 AM
then reserves position and says to not take forum debate so serious ("why so serious"?)


Not sure if serious or just haven't seen Batman....

Vomitlord
08-31-2013, 08:52 AM
Hello there fellow forum goer!

I've been looking around these boards lately and i've noticed a problem. Not with trolls, but with something far more sinister. I've noticed fallacious arguments and generally poor debate tactics. Through the magic of Wikipedia, i have some information to share with you that will make YOU a more savvy debater.

First lets start with everyone's favorite misused fallacious argument with a quick excerpt:

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1.Person 1 has position X.
2.Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

While we are on the subject of a "bad" argument, let's see what constitutes a good argument:
--Yes, i am aware that this image is a thumbnail, if you click on it, it should open up to a larger size--
1018

Right up there at the top is what we should aim for to prove our enemies wrong! Let's focus on the central point and provide evidence and examples when necessary to show that "other guy(gal)" is just plain wrong.

This has been a PSA from Logic!. I hope to argue with YOU in a thread soon!

I take position Z in most cases

stiii
08-31-2013, 09:18 AM
This only works if people are aware of the fact they are using poor logic in the first place. Rather than complaining about the other person making ad hom/strawman attacks just because they disagree.