Logical Fallacies

[Love As Arson]

Below is a list of logical fallacies, which, now that they're before everyone, I hope will create better debates. I'd ask that it be pinned if others think it is worthwhile. This is essentially a more in depth topic regarding interactions in debates.


Non-sequitor: Where the conclusion is larger than the premises argued with. Such as, "It will rain today because it is cloudy". The conclusion is larger than the premise.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority): An argument that draws its premise based on the information of some authority figure, but the fallacy occurs when the authority appeals to is not an authority in that feild.

Agumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People): "Everybody's doing it" therefore, it is right.

Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force): Uses the force of a threat to win an arguement.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity): The premise is made to draw sympathy to win the arguement.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance): "Look for a conclusion based upon an absence of proof or evidence." (i.e. "Well, I've examined all the arguments for the existence of God, and I've seen that none of them proves that God exists. That's reason enough for me: There is no God!").

Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.

Ad hominem tu quoque (You Too Fallacy): An argument that attempts to offer a defense by accusing the accuser of a similar wrongdoing. (i.e. "Sarah cheated" says Steve. "So what, you cheated too?" says Sarah).

Ad hominem circumstantial fallacy: An argument is advanced for some ulterior motives.

False Cause: Two events that occur together are prematurely claimed to be cause and effect.

Slippery Slope: If we do this, it will naturally lead to the extreme. (i.e. If we hug, we'll have sex. So, let's not hug.)

False Dichotomy (Either/ Or Fallacy): An assertion that there are only two alternatives or two possible solutions when there is obviously more. The arguer is obviously overlooking other possible alternatives.

Equivocation: A fallacy where the conclusion of an argument rests upon the equivocal use of a word or phrase, that is, its use in two different senses. They'll use the same word in more than one way to prove something. (i.e. Love is sex, we are suppose to love someone. So we can have sex with them).

Hasty Generalization: Occurs when a generalization is formed on the basis of an unrepresentative sample. This arguement generalizes over a large or small group.

Fallacy of Division: An argument reasoning from the whole to the parts. An argument that moves from a claim about a whole or a group to a conclusion about one or all of the members of the whole.

False Analogy: An argument that draws a conclusion about on thing, even, or practice on the basis of is analogy or resmeblance to others. The fallacy occurs when the analogy or resemblance is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion, as when, for example, the resemblance is not relevant to the possession of the inferred feature or there iare relevant dissimilarites. (apples and oranges)

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): A fallacy of assuming the conclusion in one's premises. Example: "The Bible asserts that God exists. The Bible is the truth revealed by God. Therefore, God exists". This is also called "circular reasoning" but not always the same thing.

Strawman: Painting a baised or unclear repesentation of the picture painted and then tearing down that one. "Christians all believe everyone who goes to hell God doesn't love. Who wants to believe this? Christianity is false."

Red Herring: To commit the fallacy of red herring in an argument is to draw attention away from an issue by raising some other, seemingly related issue.

Inconsistency: Reasoning from inconsistent premises, that is, statments that cannot be simultaneously true.

Ad Hoc (After the Fact): Changing a central form of the argument after you hear a response. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument.

Complex question: Classic example is ,"Have you stopped beating your wife?". The answer is supposed to give a negative outlook on the answerer. It also begs the question.

The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy: Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (argument from Old): This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."

Fallacies of Composition: The Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those items; or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the whole thing.

Argumentum ad novus (argument from the new). Arguing that since something is "old" or "traditional" it certainly can't be true in light of our modern so-called "enlightened" state.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc- Meaning, in English, "After it, therefore because of it". A fallacy basically concerned with the idea that there is an assumption that, since action two followed action one, then action one must have caused action two. Which is not necessarily true.

If-by-whiskey- A relativist fallacy where the response to a question is contingent on the questioner's opinion. An if-by-whiskey argument affirms both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the questioner supports. (i.e. If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, i am against it. But if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, then I am for it)

[Jason Tate]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html

---

My favorite bookmark.

---

A journal entry on this topic:

http://www.absolutepunk.net/journal.php?do=showentry&e=9273

"The Art of the Argument"

[captainhampton]

Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.

like calling someone an "idiot" or "the aborted twin of president bush"?

[Jason Tate]

Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.

like calling someone an "idiot" or "the aborted twin of president bush"?
A) It's not an attack when it's true. It's not anyone's fault, except yours, that you're stupid.

B) Cal's a different story - because he's Cal. This is something that's been brewing for like 3 years before you started viewing this website. So, you're not allowed to comment on it.

[captainhampton]

A) It's not an attack when it's true. It's not anyone's fault, except yours, that you're stupid.

B) Cal's a different story - because he's Cal. This is something that's been brewing for like 3 years before you started viewing this website. So, you're not allowed to comment on it.

you can say my idea's and arguments are idiotic and stupid, but when you say I am stupid it becomes ad hominem.

[Tristan Needler]

Red Herring... that's one of your personal favourites, isn't it Dom?

[Jason Tate]

you can say my idea's and arguments are idiotic and stupid, but when you say I am stupid it becomes ad hominem.
No -- I'm saying you actually ARE stupid. It's not an attack - I'm speaking factually. You are someone lacking intelligence. Silly rabbit.

Furthermore, I already destroyed your argument.

[Love As Arson]

Red Herring... that's one of your personal favourites, isn't it Dom?
Your opinion of me is slanted due to your relationship with Eda.

[captainhampton]

No -- I'm saying you actually ARE stupid. It's not an attack - I'm speaking factually. You are someone lacking intelligence. Silly rabbit.

Furthermore, I already destroyed your argument.

no it is an opinion. you are making yourself look stupid by not realizing that.

[Tristan Needler]

Your opinion of me is slanted due to your relationship with Eda.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Jason Tate]

no it is an opinion. you are making yourself look stupid by not realizing that.
No, it's fact. I'm sorry -- but you are not very smart, it's been proven already. If the shoe fits.

[Love As Arson]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
If you suppose that, gays will get married and children will be raped.

[Tristan Needler]

If you suppose that, gays will get married and children will be raped.
There's nothing wrong with a little platonic man love.


-I'm His

[captainhampton]

No, it's fact. I'm sorry -- but you are not very smart, it's been proven already. If the shoe fits.

you continue to make excuses for your ad hominem attacks, it's pathetic.

[Jason Tate]

you continue to make excuses for your ad hominem attacks, it's pathetic.
I'm not making excuses for anything, because I can't engage in said "ad hominem" unless I've actually done these things:

1) Attacked you instead of your ideas. FALSE: I attacked your ideas, once you gave up and no longer could answer, I believe I called you naive. You said I called you an idiot, and I said, "fine, I'll agree with that."

2) You have to NOT be an idiot, otherwise it's not an attack. Seeing as you've yet to show any intelligence in anything you've typed -- this has not been proved to be false. So you're still wrong.

[x togepi x]

you continue to make excuses for your ad hominem attacks, it's pathetic.

you're missing the point. him calling you an idiot has nothing to do with your argument. it's not an ad hom. an ad hom would be if he said "well, you say X, but X can't be true since you're an idiot". in all reality, you could be the biggest moron ever, but you can still make true arguments.

[captainhampton]

I'm not making excuses for anything, because I can't engage in said "ad hominem" unless I've actually done these things:

1) Attacked you instead of your ideas. FALSE: I attacked your ideas, once you gave up and no longer could answer, I believe I called you naive. You said I called you an idiot, and I said, "fine, I'll agree with that."

2) You have to NOT be an idiot, otherwise it's not an attack. Seeing as you've yet to show any intelligence in anything you've typed -- this has not been proved to be false. So you're still wrong.

see others might think that something I typed is intelligent. and that is an opinion. just because you've concluded that what I typed is stupid doesn't make it a fact. it is your OPINION. you still don't get it.

[Jason Tate]

see others might think that something I typed is intelligent. and that is an opinion. just because you've concluded that what I typed is stupid doesn't make it a fact. it is your OPINION. you still don't get it.
Well, if I think you're an idiot - then you're an idiot (to me) and therefore, it's still not an attack because it's still true - and it's still not relating to your argument.

[captainhampton]

Well, if I think you're an idiot - then you're an idiot (to me) and therefore, it's still not an attack because it's still true - and it's still not relating to your argument.

it is an attack because you said i'm an idiot. if you think it, then it is not, but you said it.

[Jason Tate]

it is an attack because you said i'm an idiot. if you think it, then it is not, but you said it.
How about you go re-read that post.

[captainhampton]

my argument: you use ad hominem attacks against me. you call me stupid and you call me an idiot. here's the definition again: Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.
if you said "I think your idea's and arguments are idiotic" then it would be ok. but you said I was stupid.

your argument: it was not an attack because I've come to the conclusion that nothing you have said is intelligent. since I've come to this conclusion, it must be a fact, therefore I can attack you because it is true and that doesn't make it ad hominem.

your argument is funny.

[Jason Tate]

my argument: you use ad hominem attacks against me. you call me stupid and you call me an idiot. here's the definition again: Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.
if you said "I think your idea's and arguments are idiotic" then it would be ok. but you said I was stupid.

your argument: it was not an attack because I've come to the conclusion that nothing you have said is intelligent. since I've come to this conclusion, it must be a fact, therefore I can attack you because it is true and that doesn't make it ad hominem.

your argument is funny.
Please show me where during our discussion I said that -- go ahead, I'll wait.

[x togepi x]

my argument: you use ad hominem attacks against me. you call me stupid and you call me an idiot. here's the definition again: Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.
if you said "I think your idea's and arguments are idiotic" then it would be ok. but you said I was stupid.

your argument: it was not an attack because I've come to the conclusion that nothing you have said is intelligent. since I've come to this conclusion, it must be a fact, therefore I can attack you because it is true and that doesn't make it ad hominem.

your argument is funny.

You're misusing how ad homs work. He can say that he thinks you're stupid. That neither detracts nor fuels his argument that you are wrong. If he ends his argument at that, then yes, he's comitting an ad hom. If he goes on to explain why he believes your reasoning is flawed, (other than just saying it's stupid reasoning), then he's not committing it.

Ad hominem doesn't mean you can't call into question someone's credibility or mental faculties. The fallacy comes into play when it's all that you're doing.

[Jason Tate]

You're misusing how ad homs work. He can say that he thinks you're stupid. That neither detracts nor fuels his argument that you are wrong. If he ends his argument at that, then yes, he's comitting an ad hom. If he goes on to explain why he believes your reasoning is flawed, (other than just saying it's stupid reasoning), then he's not committing it.

Ad hominem doesn't mean you can't call into question someone's credibility or mental faculties. The fallacy comes into play when it's all that you're doing.
Furthermore, I only did it after the debate was effectively over. And I believe "naive" was the only thing I actually said.

/Called him an idiot in this thread -- but that had nothing to do with the argument/debate. Never used "you're an idiot" as a defense or rebuttal.

//I don't think he gets what it means.

[x togepi x]

Furthermore, I only did it after the debate was effectively over. And I believe "naive" was the only thing I actually said.

/Called him an idiot in this thread -- but that had nothing to do with the argument/debate. Never used "you're an idiot" as a defense or rebuttal.

//I don't think he gets what it means.

i've had this same argument with people in my Intro to Logic class all last semester. i guess some people can't pick up on the slight, but important difference. it drove my teacher crazy.

[Jason Tate]

i've had this same argument with people in my Intro to Logic class all last semester. i guess some people can't pick up on the slight, but important difference. it drove my teacher crazy.
Correct.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

my argument: you use ad hominem attacks against me. you call me stupid and you call me an idiot. here's the definition again: Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.
if you said "I think your idea's and arguments are idiotic" then it would be ok. but you said I was stupid.

your argument: it was not an attack because I've come to the conclusion that nothing you have said is intelligent. since I've come to this conclusion, it must be a fact, therefore I can attack you because it is true and that doesn't make it ad hominem.

your argument is funny.


do you ever let anything go?
I feel like every thread I go to is you, still trying to fight Tate.

[halifaxrocks]

No, it's fact. I'm sorry -- but you are not very smart, it's been proven already. If the shoe fits.

If the shoe fits is not an entire sentance. I just thought I would throw that out there.

[richter915]

people generally find fallacies well on here...it doesn't mean we're idiots because we don't know the name of the fallacy...personally I think it's an unimportant detail and might hinder discussion. Honestly, I can see people using these words to sound smarter than they are and therefore come off as intimidating...it's really a stupid tactic.

[Jason Tate]

If the shoe fits is not an entire sentance. I just thought I would through that out there.
The word is "throw" - I just just thought I'd toss that one out there.

:rolleyes:

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

The word is "throw" - I just just thought I'd toss that one out there.

:rolleyes:


haha
that sucks

[halifaxrocks]

The word is "throw" - I just just thought I'd toss that one out there.

:rolleyes:
WOW, I feel like a jackass. Keep in mind that it was 5:06am when I posted that.

[Shatter590]

i would rather see personal attacks done away with in debates entirely.

[open mind]

if someone has been shown that they're wrong, but keeps arguing thier point like they haven't been shown they are wrong, then they are stupid and idiotic.

[Shatter590]

if someone has been shown that they're wrong, but keeps arguing thier point like they haven't been shown they are wrong, then they are stupid and idiotic.

nature of debate, especially when issues are held very close.

[chronomic]

haha is it even possible to have an argument with both people not using any of these fallaices? it seems like for an argument to even occour someone has to use one.

[open mind]

nature of debate, especially when issues are held very close.

well the only time i go as far as calling someone an idiot is when they fail to grasp an uncomplicated concept after it's been explained to them.......like whether or not something is a generalization.....or when the topic of debate is itself stupid (you didn't say osama is worse then o'realy so you love osama!!!)

[Shatter590]

well the only time i go as far as calling someone an idiot is when they fail to grasp an uncomplicated concept after it's been explained to them.......like whether or not something is a generalization.....or when the topic of debate is itself stupid (you didn't say osama is worse then o'realy so you love osama!!!)

i just wont make personal attacks. I find it unprofessional. I'll go after their beliefs without a problem, and question their motives/devotion, but I wont make a personal stab.

[captainhampton]

well the only time i go as far as calling someone an idiot is when they fail to grasp an uncomplicated concept after it's been explained to them.......like whether or not something is a generalization.....or when the topic of debate is itself stupid (you didn't say osama is worse then o'realy so you love osama!!!)

yeah glad to see you understood what i was trying to do.

[open mind]

i just wont make personal attacks. I find it unprofessional. I'll go after their beliefs without a problem, and question their motives/devotion, but I wont make a personal stab.

like tate said it's not an attack if it's true. it's a message board not a work place. if someone is making an undebatably stupid argument and they continue to do so after being shown it's stupid, i'm not going to bother with trying to reason with them.

[Shatter590]

like tate said it's not an attack if it's true. it's a message board not a work place. if someone is making an undebatably stupid argument and they continue to do so after being shown it's stupid, i'm not going to bother with trying to reason with them.

i just make one last comment saying the argument is false, then ignore them. however, if they attack me, then all bets are off.

[open mind]

yeah glad to see you understood what i was trying to do.

what you say you were trying to do was stupid to.

[Love As Arson]

This needs to be stickied.

[EasySkankin]

haha is it even possible to have an argument with both people not using any of these fallaices? it seems like for an argument to even occour someone has to use one.
Exactly. It just goes to show there is no such thing as an opinion, only certain degrees of ignorance, which everyone has.

I use Nizkor for reference on logical fallacies, and it doesn't give a very satisfying description of "No True Scotsmen". Could anyone please elaborate?

EDIT: also, loveasarson, i don't know if it was an honest mistake, but your description of circumstantial ad hominem is slightly off. The fallacy lies in the person portraying the arguer's premise as false because he supposedly has ulterior motives.

[EasySkankin]

In that case, isn't it simply a result of an obscure undefined argument, and not necessarily fallacy? Because the definition of a christian is heavily disputed, as is basically everything else.

[x togepi x]

it's using the conclusion of an argument to counter an objection to a premise. in logic, the premises and conclusion should operate in different levels. premises prove conclusions but you cannot turn that around and make conclusions prove premises.

[EasySkankin]

^ By that you mean it's OWN premises, right?

[x togepi x]

yeah its own. obviously there are arguments that use conclusions from one as a premise in another, but i can't exactly remember what they're called.

[Rock]

what you say you were trying to do was stupid to.
*too.

[screamoutmyname]

this reminds me of speech class... yikes!

[CrenshawPunch]

Bump, because it to so useful and it took so long to find.

[oldwirehands]

Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.

like calling someone an "idiot" or "the aborted twin of president bush"?

A) It's not an attack when it's true. It's not anyone's fault, except yours, that you're stupid.

B) Cal's a different story - because he's Cal. This is something that's been brewing for like 3 years before you started viewing this website. So, you're not allowed to comment on it.

you can say my idea's and arguments are idiotic and stupid, but when you say I am stupid it becomes ad hominem.

No -- I'm saying you actually ARE stupid. It's not an attack - I'm speaking factually. You are someone lacking intelligence. Silly rabbit.

Furthermore, I already destroyed your argument.

no it is an opinion. you are making yourself look stupid by not realizing that.

No, it's fact. I'm sorry -- but you are not very smart, it's been proven already. If the shoe fits.

you continue to make excuses for your ad hominem attacks, it's pathetic.

I'm not making excuses for anything, because I can't engage in said "ad hominem" unless I've actually done these things:

1) Attacked you instead of your ideas. FALSE: I attacked your ideas, once you gave up and no longer could answer, I believe I called you naive. You said I called you an idiot, and I said, "fine, I'll agree with that."

2) You have to NOT be an idiot, otherwise it's not an attack. Seeing as you've yet to show any intelligence in anything you've typed -- this has not been proved to be false. So you're still wrong.

see others might think that something I typed is intelligent. and that is an opinion. just because you've concluded that what I typed is stupid doesn't make it a fact. it is your OPINION. you still don't get it.

Well, if I think you're an idiot - then you're an idiot (to me) and therefore, it's still not an attack because it's still true - and it's still not relating to your argument.

it is an attack because you said i'm an idiot. if you think it, then it is not, but you said it.

How about you go re-read that post.

my argument: you use ad hominem attacks against me. you call me stupid and you call me an idiot. here's the definition again: Ad hominem: An argument is an attack upon the person rather than the person's ideas.
if you said "I think your idea's and arguments are idiotic" then it would be ok. but you said I was stupid.

your argument: it was not an attack because I've come to the conclusion that nothing you have said is intelligent. since I've come to this conclusion, it must be a fact, therefore I can attack you because it is true and that doesn't make it ad hominem.

your argument is funny.

Please show me where during our discussion I said that -- go ahead, I'll wait.

Wow.

[Momo32T]

Im in a course right now called Critical Thinking. Half our class is devoted to discussing logical fallacies. I think you might be missing a few that we have gone over. Explaining By Naming (kinda like ad hominem, but slightly different), Confusion Of Cause And Effect, Neglect Of A Common Cause, and a few more. I'm not pointing these out to be snooty, but I wanted to add some to your list. The book we used for class is pretty good, its called Asking The Right Questons. Here is the link...http://www.amazon.com/Asking-Right-Questions-Critical-Thinking/dp/0132203049

[atticus1492]

Moral of this thread: Jason Tate should post more.

[xvszero]

The problem with trying to become a logical Nazi is that out there in the real world you sort of have to use logical "fallacies" to make a point because nothing is ever neat and perfectly logical.

It'd be great if there were some 100% perfectly logical way to determine whether abortion or capital punishment should or shouldn't be allowed... but there isn't. What you have to do is use logic to the best of your ability but accept that there will be logical jumps inherent in any argument you want to make.

OR... you just say hey, there is no way to discuss this with pure logic, so I give up. But that doesn't get much done.

[xvszero]

No one ever said you could logically prove abortion is good or bad.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you try to take a stand where you aren't using logical fallacies at all while arguing most real world topics, you will run into a brick wall very quickly. People love picking apart arguments for logical fallacies, but logical fallacies are only fallacies if you are dealing with pure logic, and most topics can't be handled with pure logic.

Here is an example. You have abortion. On one side, you have people who speak about babies being torn to pieces or women who aborted and live with guilt the rest of their lives. On the other side you have people who speak about young mothers whose lives will be ruined if they are forced to have a child or children born into unwanted homes. Both of these are an "appeal to pity" which is considered a logical fallacy. But I think both are strong arguments on each side because they point out real world consequences in emotional terms that human beings can understand. Life and choice might be at the center of the debate, but if you try to argue them in cold hard fact you might stand a chance arguing against a robot, but you won't make any headway in bringing any warm-blooded human beings to your side. We are emotional creatures, and we LIKE being emotional creatures.

This is a core theme of a lot of science fiction. You have the human and the robot team up, and some choice has to be made, and the robot chooses the logical choice even though it means a lot of death at the moment but saves mankind in the end, and the human knows he/she should also choose that but he/she can't, rebels, goes with the irrational choice... and manages to save the day anyway. The robot was technically right, but the human understood something from an emotional view that pure logic couldn't comprehend. And the audience cheers. Because it reaffirms their humanity or something.

I'm spinning my wheels here, but the point is most people on either side of something like abortion don't WANT to be cold and scientific. They want a more emotional human perspective. And this isn't necessarily a fallacy, because without emotions human beings are nothing. Or something like that.

[SgtSmegma]

No -- I'm saying you actually ARE stupid. It's not an attack - I'm speaking factually. You are someone lacking intelligence. Silly rabbit.

Furthermore, I already destroyed your argument.

Hahahaha.

[Jason Tate]

Hahahaha.
That was a bad day.

:zip:

[SgtSmegma]

That was a bad day.

:zip:

It was good for me. I got a laugh out of it.

[Mitch]

My goal is to learn all of the fallacies.

[Mitch]

Are there any good books that basically list and explain all the fallacies (with examples)?

[saysmydoctor]

Can't think of any outstanding examples.

[Nevuk]

Are there any good books that basically list and explain all the fallacies (with examples)?
All of them? Hmm... there are a shit ton of fallacies for THAT, and many are opinion based. However, introductory college English texts typically have many of them and explain them well. However, here are some interesting websites for them. (and this first one is likely one of the most complete lists you'll find)
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html . Very large list and classification, I really doubt you'd ever be able to prove some of them (fallacy fallacy , for instance), but if you want to learn ALL of them, go right ahead. (Tate posted this site earlier in the thread, but it seems to have been overlooked by most. Its quite complete).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Shorter list, but has clearer examples.

The issue with using a fallacy is the subjective quality of certain of them. Sure, begging the question is one pretty much no one could argue against, but red herring/non sequitor are easy to disagree on the validity of a story.

[SgtFumunda]

Bumped for utilitarian purposes.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

This thread would have been usefull during the election :argue:

[loveisdead]

This thread would have been usefull during the election :argue:
Nah, nothing got through to anyone. Everyone was stubborn.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

true but it would have been easier to just link people to the the first post in this thread and been like " Please educate yourself"

[loveisdead]

true but it would have been easier to just link people to the the first post in this thread and been like " Please educate yourself"
Haha yeah, but we did that in the election day thread all the time and nobody listened. Think about how many times the birth certificate argument was had.

[Adeniz19]

the first couple of pages in here were great

[saysmydoctor]

Tate at his finest. Captainhampton is still learning how to color in the lines.

[IAmNietzche]

The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy: Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".

That is not a fallacy.

[QuikTrig]

referring to some of the firsts posts in here:
how the hell is it not a personal attack if its true?

if there is a flat-chested ugly woman in front of me, and i call her a mosquito-bitten butterface bitch, its true. but its still a verbal attack...right?

[oddwithoutend]

referring to some of the firsts posts in here:
how the hell is it not a personal attack if its true?

if there is a flat-chested ugly woman in front of me, and i call her a mosquito-bitten butterface bitch, its true. but its still a verbal attack...right?

You're right. Determining if something is an attack has no relation to the truth value of the statement.

And to anyone asserting that logical fallacies must be used to have an argument, I must disagree. Logical fallacies are, however, often used intentionally to make an argument seem correct. Ad Hominem is used constantly with politicians. Do they HAVE to commit ad hominem to engage in debate? No. Do they realise that they are committing ad hominem while doing so? Yes. It is strategic to commit ad hominem so others will grow a distaste for the other person. Ad hominem does not in any way strengthen the actual argument though.