NationStates Jolt Archive

Purpose of Thread:
1) To educate the average poster concerning the construction of a good argument.
2) To allow NSers a chance to vent frustration due to faulty arguments.
3) For our forums to have better and more enlightening discussions.

Personally, my biggest fallacious pet peeve is the strawman argument. I hate posting an idea and having someone blow it out of proportion to make it look idiotic.

Begging the Question. I also dislike people who answer a counterargument by restating their opinion or by adding other information without truly answering the counterargument.

These are just two examples, I know several NSers who will have good input and I hope it happens. Plus feel free to fully explore purpose #2.

Though I believe your ideal is wasted on the General forum, I'll help.

New information and facts alone aren't good enough. As several posts illustrate and usually start with "Well, what about... and end with :) " as if that solves the debate. No, you have to have the wit to apply such knowledge to an agenda and propose a new statement. Your purpose is to convince another. Admit it, yes it is.

Convincing others is a multi-step process that consumes many posts, probably more than one thread and could take days. Most of the time, you will fail. Fail in a mature gracious manner. Do try again, even if they ignore you.

Most threads on the General forum can be safely ignored. They are not here for the purpose of educating others. I make an example of the poll thread that says something controversial, perhaps offensive and then tells you to deal with it. Don't step into the sewage pit with the thread creator. Skip over the thread and go about your life.

That little bit said, I hope this thread lasts a while before the general level of wit here destroys all idealism.

My own is slippery slope

Ad-Hominim also gets my goat

As well as Post HOC

I studied Critical Thinking for some time, which is analysing arguments basically. There are numerous flws and fallacies which we were guarded from making. Its best to steer clear of the following, in my view, but if this isnt helpful tell me to shut up...
Ad hominem -refers to comments about the opponent to convince the audience to stop listening to their argument

Generalisation- A few specific examples are used to try to prove a statement

Slippery Slope Argument- Someone argues that one small change will lead to huge consequences without any evidence

Red Herring flaw- Changing the subject

Appeal to Emotion- obvious really

Band Wagon- peer pressure etc.

Burden of Proof- I don't have to prove it, you must disprove it

Appeal to ridicule-

Appeal to ignorance- Making yourself sound intelligent and the opponent stupid

Poisoning the well- Like Ad Hominem but claiming that the opponent is biased

Tu Coque- Pot calling the kettle black

These were things we were given on the course to spot a poor argument, although everyone uses them all, including me...

I studied Critical Thinking for some time, which is analysing arguments basically. There are numerous flws and fallacies which we were guarded from making. Its best to steer clear of the following, in my view, but if this isnt helpful tell me to shut up...
Ad hominem -refers to comments about the opponent to convince the audience to stop listening to their argument

Generalisation- A few specific examples are used to try to prove a statement

Slippery Slope Argument- Someone argues that one small change will lead to huge consequences without any evidence

Red Herring flaw- Changing the subject

Appeal to Emotion- obvious really

Band Wagon- peer pressure etc.

Burden of Proof- I don't have to prove it, you must disprove it

Appeal to ridicule-

Appeal to ignorance- Making yourself sound intelligent and the opponent stupid

Poisoning the well- Like Ad Hominem but claiming that the opponent is biased

Tu Coque- Pot calling the kettle black

These were things we were given on the course to spot a poor argument, although everyone uses them all, including me...


Dont forget my favorite to hate PostHOC and straw man :)

In the Protectorate of Ehrlichites (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=ehrlichites) , ad-hominem criticisms are considered permissable grounds for homicide.

The thing that I find amusing is that some people think they are PWNING an argument just because they can use bigger words than the person they are arguing against, quite often they are just writing more sophisticated sounding BS. OR just because they can quote some intellectual dead guy they are some elitist argument guru ;)

Appeal to ignorance- Making yourself sound intelligent and the opponent stupid

...


I might be mistaken, but I thought Appeal to Ignorance was either (offensive)making assumptions and facts knowing your opponent cannot rebuttel, or (defensive) putting faulty facts and assumptions onto a faulty source.

In the Protectorate of Ehrlichites (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=ehrlichites) , ad-hominem criticisms are considered permissable grounds for homicide.

Awesome!!!

Posters should really consider inductive and deductive reasoning when they are trying to prove a point... misuse of deductive logic is common and causes the misuser to seem ignorant :rolleyes:

Example:
This is a flower.
This is red.
Therefore, flowers are red. :headbang:

Posters should really consider inductive and deductive reasoning when they are trying to prove a point... misuse of deductive logic is common and causes the misuser to seem ignorant :rolleyes:

Example:
This is a flower.
This is red.
Therefore, flowers are red. :headbang:

yea, I tried to explain an if/then argument's contrapositive to some guy and it confused the shit out of him.

The most common one I see is the argument from ignorance.