[The E]

...is a really good resource that should be consulted by anyone interested in debating stuff in a reasonable, non-stupid way.

It also has gorgeous illustrations.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/

[watsisname]

That was very nicely presented.  Cute pictures, too. :3

[Phantom Hoover]

counterpoint: this kind of emphasis on categorising and calling out logical fallacies just makes arguments into a exercise in mechanical, pseudo-formal one-upmanship where one or both parties are simply trying to catch the other out for their ~fallacies~ to the exclusion of actually reading what's being said, and also has the effect of forcing all discussions to become needlessly confrontational 'arguments'

[Flipside]

I think it has, sadly, been an undertone of GenDis in particular that some people take every discussion as an opportunity to 'win' something, I've never quite figured out what it is they are actually 'winning', and I'm not even certain they do either. Hence we get multi-page threads that everyone knows are going absolutely nowhere, but simply cannot back out of because they have made an investment in their position and feel their credibility will be reduced in some way if they do not continue to push their opinion on the matter.

I suppose it really boils down to identifying the difference between discussing something and arguing about it, the title of this Forum suggests the former, yet it is all too common to see it descend into the latter.

Edit : Which is pretty much what PH said, but after spending a couple of minutes wording this, I wasn't about to cancel the post

Edit 2: Misread what PH said but don't want to alter the content of the above post.

[docfu]

Amen to that.

(No religious connection is expressed or implied. Just wanted to use language people would understand.)

[The E]

counterpoint: this kind of emphasis on categorising and calling out logical fallacies just makes arguments into a exercise in mechanical, pseudo-formal one-upmanship where one or both parties are simply trying to catch the other out for their ~fallacies~ to the exclusion of actually reading what's being said, and also has the effect of forcing all discussions to become needlessly confrontational 'arguments'

I cannot disagree with this position, but what alternative approaches are there to teach people about logical and argumentational fallacies? This is similar to some of the arguments that flew around in the Sarkeesian thread(s), where people were criticizing the videos for not being a complete exploration of issues and ways to counteract them; Criticizing a book written to illustrate common fallacies for only illustrating common fallacies strikes me as a bit weird.

[Luis Dias]

Well I think there's a distinct difference between knowing how to argue (and this book gives us a good list of things to avoid when arguing) and engaging in an argument in a dick-ish way "let's show these n00bs they know nothing about debating... let's see how many fallacies I can spot in less than 5 minutes... GO!".

I've had quite a lot of encounters with the latter kind of people, and it's neither informative nor appealling. A bunch of sites and forums quite degraded IMO for letting these morons free reign to terrorize everyone else they do not agree with.

This does not however excuse anyone from deciding to not learn about these fallacies and how arguments should really be put forward.

[redsniper]

counterpoint: this kind of emphasis on categorising and calling out logical fallacies just makes arguments into a exercise in mechanical, pseudo-formal one-upmanship where one or both parties are simply trying to catch the other out for their ~fallacies~ to the exclusion of actually reading what's being said, and also has the effect of forcing all discussions to become needlessly confrontational 'arguments'

[Luis Dias]

more like "welcome to the internet"

and don't get me started on twitter

[Mars]

If you argue with logical fallacies then you might as well not argue at all, as nothing you prove with a fallacy can be taken to mean much of anything. It isn't a "screw you n00b" thing, it's an imperative for actually having a discussion that isn't full of useless text.

[Luis Dias]

That's not the problem. The problem comes when an asshole has a list of ten or twenty "fallacies" in his notepad and instead of talking or discussing the issue being discussed in a thread with at least some minimum sense of politeness, charity and modicum, goes on derailing the discussion into one of a metadiscussion of this kind, "this is a fallacy, that one is too, you are too dumb to even realise it", etc.

This kind of tone trolling is hard to fight, because "in the books" seems fine. It's about getting the fallacies out of the discussion, it's about throwing out the "stupidity" out of the discussion, so that in "theory" all that remains is pure, intelligent and non-fallacious. What it actually ends up happening is something akin to (for instance) the Pharyngula comments section, where absolute bullies roam the threads looking for any newbie for them to **** up with, "refute" and "shown" how utterly stupid and mindblowing idiotic their little brains are and some such, for they are the harbingers of logic, reason and fallacy-destruction.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. People are people, and to prevent this kind of corruption and degeneration we need much more than "rules", be them logical or some ****. We need people to understand they are addressing other people, to understand this basic humanism even in simple endeavours like "discussing things in a random internet forum" and that the really hard thing to try to do is not to be a dick to them, despite any shenanigans you might find them doing.

I really like these kinds of rules, but they should always be seen (IMO) as a self-learning thing, not as an enforcement for discussion.

[MP-Ryan]

Well I think there's a distinct difference between knowing how to argue (and this book gives us a good list of things to avoid when arguing) and engaging in an argument in a dick-ish way "let's show these n00bs they know nothing about debating... let's see how many fallacies I can spot in less than 5 minutes... GO!".

I've had quite a lot of encounters with the latter kind of people, and it's neither informative nor appealling. A bunch of sites and forums quite degraded IMO for letting these morons free reign to terrorize everyone else they do not agree with.

This does not however excuse anyone from deciding to not learn about these fallacies and how arguments should really be put forward.

This.  Oh so much this.

I think The E's link is good informative reading for what not to do.

[Phantom Hoover]

If you argue with logical fallacies then you might as well not argue at all, as nothing you prove with a fallacy can be taken to mean much of anything. It isn't a "screw you n00b" thing, it's an imperative for actually having a discussion that isn't full of useless text.

But when people start using accusations of fallacy as weapons the discussion becomes nothing but useless text, with even less worth than if everyone was just speaking fallaciously but in earnest. That's not to say knowing about fallacies isn't important, but your first priority should be monitoring your own use of them and using that to inform your responses to other people, rather than trying to directly police them.

[MP-Ryan]

If you argue with logical fallacies then you might as well not argue at all, as nothing you prove with a fallacy can be taken to mean much of anything. It isn't a "screw you n00b" thing, it's an imperative for actually having a discussion that isn't full of useless text.

But when people start using accusations of fallacy as weapons the discussion becomes nothing but useless text, with even less worth than if everyone was just speaking fallaciously but in earnest. That's not to say knowing about fallacies isn't important, but your first priority should be monitoring your own use of them and using that to inform your responses to other people, rather than trying to directly police them.

I don't actually see Mars saying other people should police them... =)

[Luis Dias]

This thread is just horribly boring, all the opinions mostly agreeing with each other n ****. Can we please get someone making a huge logical fallacy right now so the thread becomes suddenly more interesting and at the same time hilariously ironic? Please?

[docfu]

This thread is just horribly boring, all the opinions mostly agreeing with each other n ****. Can we please get someone making a huge logical fallacy right now so the thread becomes suddenly more interesting and at the same time hilariously ironic? Please?

While I am posting here in this forum, other people are actually out doing things that are both beneficial and detrimental to the world and somehow, magically, their lives have more meaning than mine ever will as long as I keep typing and you keep reading.

[Phantom Hoover]

This thread is just horribly boring, all the opinions mostly agreeing with each other n ****. Can we please get someone making a huge logical fallacy right now so the thread becomes suddenly more interesting and at the same time hilariously ironic? Please?

no real portugoose would say that kind of thing, it's all bull****

[Lorric]

On the winning thing, it took me a very long time to realise people were even doing this, as it makes such little sense to me to do so, I knew something was wrong, but I didn't know what it was. But now I can finally identify it, I want and will have nothing to do with it.

I win either way is the way I look at it. If I "win", I've taught someone something. If I "lose" they've taught me something. But this only works if the debate is in good spirit. As soon as the bull**** enters the debate, then it becomes worthless.

[Phantom Hoover]

luis was not being serious when he asked for someone to say something incredibly stupid, lorric

[The E]

Really, PH? Really? Of all the fallacies, you had to use the ad hominem?