A Discussion Thread About Debating

[Sigma 768]

This thread is exactly what the title says it is. It is a non-debating discussion about debating. The main reason why I made this thread is because I hope that the information exchanged here will lead to people being more rational the next time they make a post in the Debate Pit. The information I want exchanged here is:

 

-Logical fallacies, and why they're fallacious.

 

-How to not be annoyed when someone's either being unreasonable, isn't processing what you're saying, or is simply trying to make you mad.

 

-Also important is how to tell the difference between the three possibilities I just mentioned, so there won't be any misunderstandings.

 

-When it's time to admit that you're wrong (or simply stop posting, as most people seem to do).

 

-Encouragement of good behavior such as not mixing personal attacks in with your argument, asking questions or doing quick research when the person you're debating against is using a point that you're lacking knowledge in, not going "Ha! I told you so!" like a poor sport if someone admits that you're right, etc.

 

Got all that? Good, now let's debate discuss!

Edited July 18, 2014 by Asterisk Propernoun

[Sigma 768]

Alright, It appears that the thread needs some TLC. I'll start by quoting a statement I found while reading this Wikipedia page.

 

In 2009, Judith Reisman decried the Day of Silence as a direct assault "on traditional parental, American values" and directly compared youth involvement in GLSEN with the Hitler Youth,

 

I color coated the logical fallacy in red for clarification, and color coated another section in blue so I can make a point after I explain the fallacy. Let's take a closer look...

 

Reductio ad Hitlerum

This is trying to refute a person's view by comparing it to a view that Adolf Hitler or the Nazi party would hold. It is a form of association fallacy, or what is more commonly known as guilt by association. Association fallacy can take the form of an ad hominem attack, which is rejecting a claim based on an irrelevant trait about the person presenting the claim, and-although uncertain-I do believe that the red part of the quote is an ad hominem attack. Here's a Euler diagram to help you see exactly what's happening:

 

 

Notice how A is in both B and C, yet B is not C, nor is B completely inside of C. Saying that something is all of something else because of one shared view is like saying that Winston Churchill supported Adolf Hitler because they both supported painting. When used in that manner, you can tell that Reductio ad Hitlerum is obviously a fallacious argument.

 

Now, on to the section in blue. I originally meant for it to be an example of appeal to tradition, but decided that the example would be incorrect because, although Judith Reisman did mention the values as being traditional, her argument didn't rely on the values being traditional for validity. I'm going to pass on what I've learned from making this post over to you: Carefully analyse the context of the person's statement before you try to play the fallacy card.

 

So, now that you're aware of this fallacy, I'm hoping you'll be self aware and avoid using it the next time you're in the Debate Pit.

 

Disclaimer: Despite the fact that I failed to call a fallacy on the statement in blue, I still believe it to be utterly false.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Asterisk Propernoun