Thread: How to Argue Properly (Vol 1)
12/24/2005 5:38pm, #1
How to Argue Properly (Vol 1)
I'm bored. Therefore, everyone will suffer.
The medium of the "Message Board" allows for people of every ethnicity and origin to converse on matters of personal importance. In addition, the lack of direct inter-personal contact neglects a facet of logical discussion that is otherwise found in day to day conversation. This can lead to a lack of accountability within the posting community, as can be demonstrated by a quick perusal of said forums.
Those without formal training in the science of Logic may find themselves falling prey to various forms of "conversational trickery". This "trickery" is perpetrated by individuals who have a strong desire to be deemed "correct", but who lack sufficient reasoning power to prove their respective point in a reasonable, Logical manner.
Therefore, as a service the Bullshido community, I will provide an overview of common "Logical Fallacies" often used and abused by posters herein. May the light of reason banish said abusers once and for all!
-Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum): Direct or indirect threat hidden within a statement that attempts to coerce the listener to the speaker's way of thinking.
---"MMA is the best martial art in existence. If you disagree, then I'm sure Ken Shamrock will correct you. So obviously, my style is better."
-Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam): Direct or indirect attempt to elicit feelings of compassion and pity from the listener in order to coerce the listener to the speaker's way of thinking.
---"My instructor says that every other martial art other than his is worthless and stupid, and he would come here and back that up...except he was in a tragic Port-a-Potty accident while feeding starving children in Antarctica. He no longer has the use of his hindquarters, so let us have a moment of silence for this philanthropist. Obviously, my instructor is better."
-Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum): Direct or indirect attempt to make the speaker's opinion appear popular and exclusive.
---"I train in Muay Tae Kwon Jitsu. Before my instructor will even look at you, you must first defeat a hungry lion with your bare hands, then build a house with your elimination orifices while quoting Hamlet backwards with a Swahili accent. Obviously, my style is better."
-Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem): Direct or indirect attempt to attack the speaker's credibility on unrelated issues, thereby diverting attention from the original point.
---"The respected Sensei Joe Millionaire has fought in a dozen death matches and proven his skill beyond a doubt. However, Sensei Joe Millionaire is also a member of the Purple Party, and the Purple Party is responsible for the depletion of the O-Zone. I also heard that Sensei Joe Millionaire caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, so obviously his style is worse."
-Straw Man: The creation of a fake "personae" that is easily attacked and criticized, upon which the feelings of negativity translate to the person the speaker intends.
---"Brazilian Shoto Kung Chi is a style that incorporates aspects of many different arts, and was developed by several elderly martial artists over several decades. However, we know that old people smell and can't drive well, and that they make gross sounds when they chew. These characteristics are identical to the Nazis, who nearly exterminated an innocent religious group. Obviously, that style is worse."
-Missing the Point: A fallacy in which the original point is misinterpreted to form a completely unrelated conclusion.
---"Thousands died in Rowanda yesterday. Therefore, all Mixed Martial Artists suck. Obviously, they are worse."
-Red Herring: A deliberate attempt to negate argument against the speaker by leading the argument onto a different but relatively related path.
---"Sure, many traditional martial artists were destroyed within the ruleset of the UFC. However...have you noticed that all the judges for the UFC had black hair? People with black hair are proven to be favorable to non-traditional martial arts, and so it makes sense that they rigged the competition in favor of non-traditional MA. Obviously, my style is better."
These are known as the "Fallacies of Relevance", and are textbook cases of how an argument can not be proven correct.
I hope everyone sleeps better now.
Please forgive me.
12/24/2005 5:41pm, #2
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
12/24/2005 6:36pm, #3
12/24/2005 6:40pm, #4
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Soviet State Of Kalifornia
Let's not see volume 2. Thanks..
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without spilling your Guinness.
Sun "Fu Man JhooJits" Tzu, the Art of War & Guinness
12/24/2005 9:42pm, #5
Topic megafails for old content.
Originally Posted by FredGarvinMP
12/24/2005 10:41pm, #6
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat with with experience"
12/24/2005 10:56pm, #7
Bullshit. Idiots can barely keep their sentences coherent when they're trying to keep up someone that isn't a dumbass. Even basic "why?" questions will eventually have them totally confused.
12/24/2005 11:22pm, #8
12/25/2005 12:06am, #9Originally Posted by hapkido_keith
12/25/2005 1:55pm, #10
People who like to argue using logic should not do so on internet message boards. Ad hominem and straw man are all you really need here.