NationStates Jolt Archive

I've said this before. Internet debate has left the notion of the logical fallacy beaten and bloody, laying in the gutter gasping for breath.

And I'm not talking about people using logical fallacies, oh no-see, they're fallacies and if you actually know them they're not that hard to get around or point out why they don't work without throwing the claim out like it's a yellow flag (or yellow card, for those of you whose football is played with actual feet).

It's that-the throwing the accusations of fallacy about willy-nilly that I'm talking about. Ideas like ad hominem and strawman have been tossed about and hammered away at any argument regardless of appropriateness to the point that the poor bastards are barely recognizable.

It's almost like you can smell that 'used textbook smell' of recent English 1A students (or equivalent first level argument class) who've memorized the snappier names of a handful of the fallacies and raced their anxious fingers to internet debate waiting with itchy triggers to sling their new found tool like it's the ultimate argument trump card. It's as if internet debate has become just a race to who can say, "Slippery Slope!" first. Godwin has nothing on the careless accusation of the logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if the fallacy is correctly identified, just as long as you say it is.

Which fallacy do you think is most often abused like a pubescent teenager's penis after the discovery of dad's Playboys? The one that's been tossed about so much that it almost has lost all meaning?

Poll coming.

I've said this before. Internet debate has left the notion of the logical fallacy beaten and blood, laying in the gutter gasping for breath.

And I'm not talking about people using logical fallacies, oh no-see, they're fallacies and if you actually know them they're not that hard to get around or point out why they don't work without throwing the claim out like it's a yellow flag (or yellow card, for those of you whose football is played with actual feet).

It's that-the throwing the accusations of fallacy about willy-nilly that I'm talking about. Ideas like ad hominem and strawman have been tossed about and hammered away at any argument regardless of appropriateness to the point that the poor bastards are barely recognizable.

It's almost like you can smell that 'used textbook smell' of recent English 1A students (or equivalent first level argument class) who've memorized the snappier names of a handful of the fallacies and raced their anxious fingers to internet debate waiting with itchy triggers to sling their new found tool like it's the ultimate argument trump card. It's as if internet debate has become just a race to who can say, "Slippery Slope!" first. Godwin has nothing on the careless accusation of the logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if the fallacy is correctly identified, just as long as you say it is.

Which fallacy do you think is most often abused like a pubescent teenager's penis after the discovery of dad's Playboys? The one that's been tossed about so much that it almost has lost all meaning?

Poll coming.



Strawman, Godwin, and Ad Hominem. Its a tie really.

They seem to come and go in phases. I remember when 'ad hominiem' was really popular. People dropped it if you so much as mentioned them in a post.
Then came the Strawman era. Bad times, those were. Back then, any use of metaphor or hyperbole was a strawman.
Are we getting into slippery slope now?

itchy triggers to sling their new found tool like it's the ultimate argument trump card. It's as if internet debate has become just a race to who can say, "Slippery Slope!"

It's only abused because so many people on the internet commit them, all the time.

Well, the only one I've seen since I came back has been Strawman...

Strawman, Godwin, and Ad Hominem. Its a tie really.
Only a fucking nazi would put Godwin in the same category as those two.

It's only abused because so many people on the internet commit them, all the time.
http://uncov.com/assets/2007/6/29/fry-see-what-you-did-there-scaled.jpg

Internet debate has left the notion of the logical fallacy beaten and blood

If you think that's vexing, you should see how it has raped basic grammar.

If you think that's vexing, you should see how it has raped basic grammar.

I don't need your class to graduate...

You forgot the "If I can speak loudly enough and long enough, that makes me right" fallacy. Also the Hitler's "tell a big enough lie often enough and they'll believe you" fallacy.

I don't need your class to graduate...

... you just need it to arrive.

You forgot the "If I can speak loudly enough and long enough, that makes me right" fallacy. Also the Hitler's "tell a big enough lie often enough and they'll believe you" fallacy.

I'm not talking about the actual use of fallacious arguments, rather the ad hoc policing of fallacies that so recklessly happens during internet debates.

I vote for the very concept of an argument. I mean, everybody does arguments all the time!! What the hell? Talk about abusing such a wrong wrongy thing!!

You need to be original, like complain. Nothing generic like arguments can beat complaining: the epitome of originality.

Strawman, Godwin, and Ad Hominem. Its a tie really.Godwin's law isn't a fallacy, it's an observation.

Hmm, on here, most of the times I see something called a strawman it actually is one. The one I see misapplied most frequently would be ad hominem.

Mostly people yelling "strawman" and "appeal to emotion." And posting samples/sources now is getting kinda pointless, because no one believes anybody else's source. Accusing people of slippery slope is often unwarranted, since sometimes they do have a good point.

As for the ad hominems... I know most of the time I'm accused, it was because I was guilty. Usually very guilty. I'm a real asshole on the internet sometimes.

The only think more abused than strawman arguments are accusations of strawman arguments. :p

ya know, as much as i dislike the strawmen and ad hominems here its been very instructive when i listen to speeches and rants in various venues of the real world.

i can (almost) listen to rush limbaugh and actually identify why his positions and explanations are wrong instead of just yelling "that is STUPID!" at the radio. now i can say "another strawman, rush?" or "ad hominem, rush" and keep a slight grip on my sanity as i reach for the radio buttons.

ya know, as much as i dislike the strawmen and ad hominems here its been very instructive when i listen to speeches and rants in various venues of the real world.

i can (almost) listen to rush limbaugh and actually identify why his positions and explanations are wrong instead of just yelling "that is STUPID!" at the radio. now i can say "another strawman, rush?" or "ad hominem, rush" and keep a slight grip on my sanity as i reach for the radio buttons.Does he listen? =o

Ad hominem and strawman seem, to me, like the only fallacies where the accusation of fallacy is abused. All those fallacies themselves are abused on the internet.

Does he listen? =o
that fat bastard acts as if i never said anything!

i hate radio.

that fat bastard acts as if i never said anything!

i hate radio.It's like talking to a tape recorder, isn't it?

I feel False Dilemma gets used a hell of a lot on t'inernet, a lot more than genuine Strawmen arguments are.

Strawman, Godwin, and Ad Hominem. Its a tie really.
Godwin isn't a fallacy, it's just a prediction. You may, however, be thinking of argumentum ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

Although it doesn't come up that often, my personal anathema is "Appeal to Authority" used to complain about the actual use of good sources. :mad:

I personally voted for Strawman.


People seems to have a really poor time articulating their point, so when we are confused about it, they yell "STRAWMAN!" as if its our faul that they cant be cohernent.

Its interesting that calling "fallacy" occurs a lot more often on the internet than in real life. I think that it is because people who are in reality not very intelligent think that it'll make them look good to throw in a term that a clever person might use and hope that because the other person can't directly interact with them this will cover up their lack of knowledge on the topic.

In fact, I've only had one person in real life accuse me of a fallacy when arguing with them. This guy was a member of the Young Conservatives (I'd argue you have to be at least mentally middle-aged to be a Conservative, but thats one for another time). In one of my rare successes in quick witted replies, my response was "if I wanted to look upon a sea of phalluses, I'd go speak at your conference." Ba-dum-dum-tsch

Its interesting that calling "fallacy" occurs a lot more often on the internet than in real life. I think that it is because people who are in reality not very intelligent think that it'll make them look good to throw in a term that a clever person might use and hope that because the other person can't directly interact with them this will cover up their lack of knowledge on the topic.
That and one can take a few minutes and check the wiki entry for the fallacy they're about to accuse someone of and make sure they're not doin it rong. Not so much IRL.

In fact, I've only had one person in real life accuse me of a fallacy when arguing with them. This guy was a member of the Young Conservatives (I'd argue you have to be at least mentally middle-aged to be a Conservative, but thats one for another time). In one of my rare successes in quick witted replies, my response was "if I wanted to look upon a sea of phalluses, I'd go speak at your conference." Ba-dum-dum-tsch

Nice. +1 Awesome points for you.

That and one can take a few minutes and check the wiki entry for the fallacy they're about to accuse someone of and make sure they're not doin it rong. Not so much IRL. .

Oh, but if that would actually happen more often...

I find this one is commited a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Oh, but if that would actually happen more often...

Indeed. It's just speaks worse of people that it's so easy to check, but they don't.

I find this one is commited a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Absolutely. That's part of what I was getting at.

No True Scotsman gets abused the most of any.

Most people who use don't understand what it means. They flip it willy nilly at anyone who is trying to argue a definition.

No True Scotsman is a fallacy of equivocation. You invoke the fallacy by subtly changing your terms when confronted with evidence. "X" becomes "true X" as a rebuttal.

No True Scotsman gets abused the most of any.

Most people who use don't understand what it means. They flip it willy nilly at anyone who is trying to argue a definition.

No True Scotsman is a fallacy of equivocation. You invoke the fallacy by subtly changing your terms when confronted with evidence. "X" becomes "true X" as a rebuttal.

Ah dammit, that one really should have made the list.

I'm annoyed by all the fallacies. Annoyed in the sense that people think they're gaining some sort of debate points by spotting the fallacy and naming it first woohoo!

Question? Why don't more people just learn how to debate without being idiot douchebags?

Answer. It would make for much less interesting conversations.

I'm annoyed by all the fallacies. Annoyed in the sense that people think they're gaining some sort of debate points by spotting the fallacy and naming it first woohoo!

Question? Why don't more people just learn how to debate without being idiot douchebags?

Answer. It would make for much less interesting conversations.

Ad hominem. Your point is now invalid. And I get points. Cause I said it first.

I'm annoyed by all the fallacies. Annoyed in the sense that people think they're gaining some sort of debate points by spotting the fallacy and naming it first woohoo!

Question? Why don't more people just learn how to debate without being idiot douchebags?

Answer. It would make for much less interesting conversations.

That's what I was sayin'...

Ad hominem. Your point is now invalid. And I get points. Cause I said it first.

Fava beans and a nice Chianti.

I've said this before. Internet debate has left the notion of the logical fallacy beaten and bloody, laying in the gutter gasping for breath.

And I'm not talking about people using logical fallacies, oh no-see, they're fallacies and if you actually know them they're not that hard to get around or point out why they don't work without throwing the claim out like it's a yellow flag (or yellow card, for those of you whose football is played with actual feet).

It's that-the throwing the accusations of fallacy about willy-nilly that I'm talking about. Ideas like ad hominem and strawman have been tossed about and hammered away at any argument regardless of appropriateness to the point that the poor bastards are barely recognizable.

It's almost like you can smell that 'used textbook smell' of recent English 1A students (or equivalent first level argument class) who've memorized the snappier names of a handful of the fallacies and raced their anxious fingers to internet debate waiting with itchy triggers to sling their new found tool like it's the ultimate argument trump card. It's as if internet debate has become just a race to who can say, "Slippery Slope!" first. Godwin has nothing on the careless accusation of the logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if the fallacy is correctly identified, just as long as you say it is.

Which fallacy do you think is most often abused like a pubescent teenager's penis after the discovery of dad's Playboys? The one that's been tossed about so much that it almost has lost all meaning?

Poll coming.

I agree with WYTYG and TCT. Ad hominem for the most often wrongly applied fallacy and appeal to authority for most annoying wrongly applied fallacy.

My big problem with internet debate and fallacies is one I see from several prolific posters. He just mentions a fallacy with no explanation. Claiming someone used a fallacy is an argument. It actually requires that you demonstrate their use of a fallacy, not just put out a list of what you think it was.

A: You've not actually given a definition of the beginning of life that does more than draw an idiotic and arbitrary line at conception. Any actual definition of what determines life that was remotely rational would include clear specifics on how that definition is reached.
B: Ad Hominem
A: Your arguments aren't wrong because they're idiotic and irrational, they're idiotic and irrational because they're wrong. Ad hominem would be the first one.
B: Another ad hominem and a strawman

The one I see misapplied most frequently would be ad hominem.

You never see "begging the question" used correctly. That gets my vote.

The fallacy fallacy is really underused. I don't know why it's underused, it could counter some of this fallacy overuse.

If you think that's vexing, you should see how it has raped basic grammar.4nd 7h3 |4n6u463 1n 63n3r4|.
Wait. Shit.

Strawman. Absolutely. I wouldn't mind seeing a moratorium on the word. If you wound someone's argument badly enough, chances are they're going to play the strawman card--generally without elaborating at all about which points you've misrepresented. I mentally replace most cries of "Nice strawman you're burning there" with "That wasn't what I was arguing and I'm not going to clarify because then you'll destroy that argument too."

I mentally replace most cries of "Nice strawman you're burning there" with "That wasn't what I was arguing and I'm not going to clarify because then you'll destroy that argument too."

That wasn't what I meant by saying it.

Nice strawman.

If I could draw this would have led with a cartoon featuring Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz pleading with people to not expect him to bail them out of shitty arguments.

EDIT: Of course, now that I think about it for half a second, that wouldn't have conveyed what I want since both 'false' strawman claims and actual strawmen do the same thing...good thing I can't draw...

I wonder if its possible to actually get information across anymore: This seems quite depressing.

Fava beans and a nice Chianti.

I genuinlly laughed out loud.

You never see "begging the question" used correctly. That gets my vote.

I use it properly. :mad:

No True Scotsman gets abused the most of any.

Most people who use don't understand what it means. They flip it willy nilly at anyone who is trying to argue a definition.

No True Scotsman is a fallacy of equivocation. You invoke the fallacy by subtly changing your terms when confronted with evidence. "X" becomes "true X" as a rebuttal.

Agreed. People don't seem to realize that it isn't drawing the equivalance that makes it No True Scotsman; it's drawing arbitrary subsets in the face of countervailing data. Pointing out that an Irishman is not a Scotsman and your definition includes Irishmen is not an infliction of the No True Scotsman.

Strawman and No True Scotsman. A lot has been said about the former already. The latter is very frequent and extremely annoying, as it leads to the third one.

And, while not exactly a logical fallacy, "Wrong Definition" is probably the worst abused "fallacy-catching" - when people reply to metaphors or any other indirect use of words with "that's not what it means!", or in the worse cases with dictionary definitions.

Strawman and No True Scotsman. A lot has been said about the former already. The latter is very frequent and extremely annoying, as it leads to the third one.

And, while not exactly a logical fallacy, "Wrong Definition" is probably the worst abused "fallacy-catching" - when people reply to metaphors or any other indirect use of words with "that's not what it means!", or in the worse cases with dictionary definitions.

Sweet Mary Crap, every time I see a dictionary.com copy and paste I want to light the damn screen on fire...and the few times I've caught myself in those back and forths I've wanted to light myself on fire. Debates start resembling a game of Scrabble...

Sweet Mary Crap, every time I see a dictionary.com copy and paste I want to light the damn screen on fire...and the few times I've caught myself in those back and forths I've wanted to light myself on fire. Debates start resembling a game of Scrabble...

Personally, I love going into dictionary definitions. It is the #1 way of ending an argument that has gone on for too long.

"You know what? You're wrong. Here's the dictionary definition: [blablabla]"
"[another definition]"
*Communal sigh followed by no one returning to the argument*
*end of argument*

Also, keeping in the IPA pronunciation (/pɹəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/) is a definite must.

I personally voted for ad hominem. It's used far too much and, personally, I think it's just because it's the fallacy with the easiest-to-remember Latin name. And God knows Latin names give you brownie points. As well, though I understand this is not what the thread is discussing, I find this, if not entirely relevant, funny: Ad hominem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEbsgEsjy9s)

No True Scotsman gets abused the most of any.



As a Scotsman, I can tell you that we are an completely fictional group of people.

Are half of these fallacies that have come about because of the internet?

4nd 7h3 |4n6u463 1n 63n3r4|.
Wait. Shit.

|\|0 @|26|_||\/|3|\|+ +|-|3|23

If I could draw this would have led with a cartoon featuring Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz pleading with people to not expect him to bail them out of shitty arguments.

EDIT: Of course, now that I think about it for half a second, that wouldn't have conveyed what I want since both 'false' strawman claims and actual strawmen do the same thing...good thing I can't draw...

So it was, dare I say, a fallacy?

I'm annoyed by all the fallacies. Annoyed in the sense that people think they're gaining some sort of debate points by spotting the fallacy and naming it first woohoo!

Exactly. I don't mind if someone accuses someone else of a fallacy, as long as they explain why. It could be there really is no fallacy, but plenty of times people will point out a weak part of an argument and just label it wrong. Of course, we have no way of knowing unless they say more than just "Strawman, fool." (Of course, this fails on another level, as the poster is attacking the other for being a fool, not his or her actual argument. Thus, it is an ad hominem. :wink:)

Exactly. I don't mind if someone accuses someone else of a fallacy, as long as they explain why. It could be there really is no fallacy, but plenty of times people will point out a weak part of an argument and just label it wrong. Of course, we have no way of knowing unless they say more than just "Strawman, fool." (Of course, this fails on another level, as the poster is attacking the other for being a fool, not his or her actual argument. Thus, it is an ad hominem. :wink:)

First of all, I would say that the "Mr. T" principle, or the ability to pity fools, is always valid.

But this was more or less what I've been saying-that accusations of 'fallacy' are tossed about willy nilly as if internet debate was nothing more than a game of "not it!"

"Ad Hominem" nowadays means, "You disagreed with me, and made me look stupid, which hurt my feelings, you meanie!"

Strawman and No True Scotsman. A lot has been said about the former already. The latter is very frequent and extremely annoying, as it leads to the third one.

And, while not exactly a logical fallacy, "Wrong Definition" is probably the worst abused "fallacy-catching" - when people reply to metaphors or any other indirect use of words with "that's not what it means!", or in the worse cases with dictionary definitions.

Sweet Mary Crap, every time I see a dictionary.com copy and paste I want to light the damn screen on fire...and the few times I've caught myself in those back and forths I've wanted to light myself on fire. Debates start resembling a game of Scrabble...

On the other hand, are the use of dictionary definitions in arguments really more annoying than the use of a word to mean something it does not mean? Or the argument that "X isn't part of Y" when the fucking definition of Y includes X?

Depending on what exactly is being disputed, I think dictionaries can clarify the discussion.

I do agree that, like fallacies, dictionaries are often misused, however.

On the other hand, are the use of dictionary definitions in arguments really more annoying than the use of a word to mean something it does not mean? Or the argument that "X isn't part of Y" when the fucking definition of Y includes X?

Depending on what exactly is being disputed, I think dictionaries can clarify the discussion.

I do agree that, like fallacies, dictionaries are often misused, however.
When it's something like a Jewel "casualty" isn't a way to describe something being casual but rather a death related to an accident or an event, yeah, dictionary is a great tool. When trying do discuss something more complex, like what makes up, say, a documentary-stupid as all hell.

When it's something like a Jewel "casualty" isn't a way to describe something being casual but rather a death related to an accident or an event, yeah, dictionary is a great tool. When trying do discuss something more complex, like what makes up, say, a documentary-stupid as all hell.

But the dictionary says that evolution is the explanation for the origin of life.

You never see "begging the question" used correctly. That gets my vote.

Had you not posted it, I would have.

And now everyone repeat after me: "That begs the question" does NOT equal "This raises the question"!

Look, there's even a Wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question

well all of them and none of them. how about lets just stop conning ourselves?

In my time here, I've only had to deal with this twice.

Once someone totally misused 'begging the question' in a thread I started about banning motor vehicles in urban areas.

And another time, someone else claimed I was 'arguing from ignorance' during a police brutality thread.

I find that most of the time they"re used by people who are more interested in winning the debate and debating the other person's argument structure than they are in learning something and actually addressing the issue. One poster I have in mind often spends pages and pages arguing other people's argument's structures and totally ignores the actual debate.

In my time here, I've only had to deal with this twice.

Once someone totally misused 'begging the question' in a thread I started about banning motor vehicles in urban areas.

And another time, someone else claimed I was 'arguing from ignorance' during a police brutality thread.

I find that most of the time they"re used by people who are more interested in winning the debate and debating the other person's argument structure than they are in learning something and actually addressing the issue. One poster I have in mind often spends pages and pages arguing other people's argument's structures and totally ignores the actual debate.

you mean their argument structures ARN'T what is actually being debated?

In my time here, I've only had to deal with this twice.

Once someone totally misused 'begging the question' in a thread I started about banning motor vehicles in urban areas.

And another time, someone else claimed I was 'arguing from ignorance' during a police brutality thread.

I find that most of the time they"re used by people who are more interested in winning the debate and debating the other person's argument structure than they are in learning something and actually addressing the issue. One poster I have in mind often spends pages and pages arguing other people's argument's structures and totally ignores the actual debate.
Sort of like a guy getting knocked about and laughing about winning because the other person doesn't know The Marquess of Queensberry rules?

While "strawman" gets thrown around more often than most... my perception is that the false-positive ratio is much higher for "appeal to authority."

It's very frustrating that people seem to think ANY reference to expert testimony is somehow fallacious or irrelevant. The result seems to be a general levelling of perceived credibility among sources.

I think this is a symptom of a broader problem that I think is at the heart of fallacy abuse. It turns on something like a reductio ad logicam, although it's really much broader than that. The problem is not merely that people assume too quickly that if an argument is fallacious its conclusions are false; rather, more broadly, as soon as debaters start learning to identify a few logical fallacies, they mistakenly reduce ALL epistemic problems to matters of deductive logic.

Of course, knowledge in (and of) the real world doesn't work that way. But then, when has the real world ever gotten in the way of Internet debate?

In my time here, I've only had to deal with this twice.

Once someone totally misused 'begging the question' in a thread I started about banning motor vehicles in urban areas.

And another time, someone else claimed I was 'arguing from ignorance' during a police brutality thread.

I find that most of the time they"re used by people who are more interested in winning the debate and debating the other person's argument structure than they are in learning something and actually addressing the issue. One poster I have in mind often spends pages and pages arguing other people's argument's structures and totally ignores the actual debate.

We're talking about misapplying fallacies. Not your misunderstanding of them. Your annoyance that you made a poor argument and got caught isn't really a valid complaint.

Nor have I ever heard of an IA investigation into police brutality.

When you argue that because you've never heard of something that it means it doesn't happen, that's exactly what you're applying. It's funny that over year later that you're pissed that you accused people of a crime and got upset that people expect you to present evidence not claim that what you don't know means that you can just assume it. Serioulys, you're still annoyed that you don't know what IA is for.

The "begging the question" example was actually an excellent point though. It was used to mean "that raises the question" much in the way suggested by SoWiBi. It was Snafturi and that usage was terrible.

What, is this the finale of Blazing Saddles?

What, is this the finale of Blazing Saddles?

Awesome movie. Wanna have sex?

Awesome movie. Wanna have sex?
spazz
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
spaz /spæz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spaz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun Slang.
1. a grotesquely awkward person.

That totally proves it.

This thread is stupid. Why do you make such anti-American threads? If we continue to let these threads pop up, we will be flooded with anarchy. We must think about the children, because the President said so. Besides, I think the UK and France allowed the Nazis to get away with about the same thing.


(I think I covered a majority of the important ones in there)

Strawman, Godwin, and Ad Hominem. Its a tie really.

Straw man and Ad Hominem also happen to be two of the best known and most commonly used, I think.

Godwin is not technically a fallacy, unless I'm much mistaken.

We're talking about misapplying fallacies. Not your misunderstanding of them. Your annoyance that you made a poor argument and got caught isn't really a valid complaint.

When you argue that because you've never heard of something that it means it doesn't happen, that's exactly what you're applying. It's funny that over year later that you're pissed that you accused people of a crime and got upset that people expect you to present evidence not claim that what you don't know means that you can just assume it. Serioulys, you're still annoyed that you don't know what IA is for.

The "begging the question" example was actually an excellent point though. It was used to mean "that raises the question" much in the way suggested by SoWiBi. It was Snafturi and that usage was terrible.

Wow. You actually bothered to dig this up. I don't know if I should be flattered or somewhat creeped out.

So, tell me how am I supposed to present evidence that there has never been a single successful investigation into police brutality that did not use videotape. That was my claim, not what you quoted there. The only way to do that would be to list all successful police brutality investigations, and then show that video was used in each and every one of them.

Or you could have just found one succesful investigation that didn't use videotape. But you just hid behind your 'you must be wrong because you used something I think is a fallacy', even though my claim fits with the data, and you can't disprove it even though it would take only one example.

You're just using AI to shift the burden of proof. You want to disprove my claim, then post a link. Don't try to pretend that I must be wrong because you think it sorta fits AI.

I wonder if I should bet fifty bucks that this will turn into one of those threads where Jocabia goes on and on about how poorly his opponent argues.

I wonder if I should bet fifty bucks that this will turn into one of those threads where Jocabia goes on and on about how poorly his opponent argues.


This.

While I know the 'appeal to authority' can be abused by people hoping to avoid argument, I really dislike it when the following exchange takes places:

Alice: The sky is blue
Bob: Source or it's not true
Alice: [source with MIT professor demonstrating the blueness of sky]
Bob: Appeal to authority :rolleyes:

It's especially annoying if it actually discourages Alice from providing evidence in the future. The links can sometimes be very interesting and help interested but non-expert bystanders learn about a new topic.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither'

Whilst not a logical fallacy I'm sure Voltaire would have something to say about this phrase.

Platitudes do not equal arguments. They never have and they never will.

Throw out your hands!!
Stick out your tush!!
Hands on your hips
Give them a push!!
You'll be surprised
You're doing the French Mistake!!
VOILA!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpJuGvbwL0)

Wow. You actually bothered to dig this up. I don't know if I should be flattered or somewhat creeped out.

So, tell me how am I supposed to present evidence that there has never been a single successful investigation into police brutality that did not use videotape. That was my claim, not what you quoted there. The only way to do that would be to list all successful police brutality investigations, and then show that video was used in each and every one of them.

Or you could have just found one succesful investigation that didn't use videotape. But you just hid behind your 'you must be wrong because you used something I think is a fallacy', even though my claim fits with the data, and you can't disprove it even though it would take only one example.

You're just using AI to shift the burden of proof. You want to disprove my claim, then post a link. Don't try to pretend that I must be wrong because you think it sorta fits AI.

I wonder if I should bet fifty bucks that this will turn into one of those threads where Jocabia goes on and on about how poorly his opponent argues.

This.
Pies! Get your pies for the great pie fight! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpJuGvbwL0)

Wow. You actually bothered to dig this up. I don't know if I should be flattered or somewhat creeped out.

You waited a year to whine about how I destroyed your argument. I don't know if I should be flattered or somewhat creeped out. Perhaps someday this forum will have a search feature and when lunatics complain about getting beat up in an argument a year ago, you'll be able to search to see what they're referencing. One can only dream.

This.

Heh, you know, you don't get enough credit, Hotwife. This forum wouldn't be the same without you.

Incidentally, in that argument, you were under one of your puppets talking about how I was right. Funny how that works.

In complete honesty, the second I saw the word 'Fallacy' my mind took a blessed turn to three years ago, where I frolicked through the classrooms of the International School of Beijing and thought that IB Theory of Knowledge class made me the king of the world.

But yeah...Ad hominem has been beaten and flayed beyond recognition. I actually heard somebody use it on the street the other day. My mind was blown.

I don't know if I have enough references to the finale of Blazing Saddles left before people take their fight to the next set...

I wasn't necessarily looking for a demonstration of the over reliance on 'calling' logical fallacies, just a discussion about it...

I don't know if I have enough references to the finale of Blazing Saddles I have left before people take their fight to the next set...

I wasn't necessarily looking for a demonstration of the over reliance on 'calling' logical fallacies, just a discussion about it...

Fixed... spazz.