http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...arguments.html

This is a list of "fallicious arguments", that have been referred to off and on in these forums for months. They seem to be geared to live debates in front of audiences, but largely apply to the written debate that goes on here.

They seem to me to have a liberal slant. I believe it's hard to debate at all without slightly breaking some of them. I believe some of them are worth noting, some are nit-picky, some are good but have a liberal slant in their description, and a few are false.

One of them is "argument by personal charm. Example, Ronald Reagan. It helps if you have an opponent with much less personal charm. Charm may create trust, or a desire to please the speaker. This last is greatest if the audience feels sex appeal."

It's a valid point, but wouldn't John F Kennedy's winning the 1960 debate with Richard Nixon be a better example? Or John Kerry picking pretty boy Edwards as his running mate?

One that I think is false is the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". This attempts to refute 'incrementalism', a very real slippery slope that recent history proves with things like anti smoking, the EPA etc.

What should be added to it, or subtracted from it - thoughts??

Good. I was going to post that one.

However I find it amsuing that one who knows so little about fallacies is posting it and pretending to be a expert.

Here's another good one too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

its hard to remember them when you get mad

So don't get mad. the cold, calculating mind is often the one that ends up on top. As one gets more emotional, the probability for slip ups increases exponetially. Often those who ARE getting emotional declare their opponent to be doing that to hide their slip ups that are the result of their inability to stay cool and calm.

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

yeah I know

Good list but interesting definition:

"A logical falacy is something someone else says when arguing with me."
Why is that there? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Did the author have too much fun with his job?

And that's the advantage of an online forum. If you get mad, don't post right away. Get all your facts straight, wait a while if you still feel emotional, and then make an intelligent, non-emotional post.

Well, I don't have any additions or subtractions of my own, but I do think that the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" is accurate, and I think it is very important for people here to understand what it is saying.

The fallacy itself does not state that it is wrong to oppose issue X if issue X may eventually lead to something worse. It does say, however that issue X is not wrong. Just because issue X may lead to something bad bears no relevance to whether issue X itself is actually bad. So although someone might state "I oppose issue X because it will lead to bad things", that person would often be better off arguing not to oppose issue X, but to look for a way to support issue X while preventing the bad things it leads to from happening.

But almost no one in our society seems willing to do that - to support issue X, and then actively oppose similar, more harsh issues. It's THE reason the U.S. government has grown so exponentially in the last century.

No, I don't think that is the reason. I think that people want government services. So when people hear that "Republicans want to cut funding for Program 1", people get unhappy and vote against them. When they hear "Democrats want to cut funding for Program 2" they again get angry. Furthermore, a lot of wealthy interest groups often have strong support for a particular program, and opposing such a program could cause you to lose funding. When both the groups that fund you and the majority opposing cutting funding to a program, it is really difficult to get rid of it.

Anyhow, even if it seems that no one in our society is willing to stop at some point, this fallacy still holds true. Issue X is still morally good, it is only some other set of issues that is morally bad. I feel that it is much more common for people who are looking for any reason to oppose issue X to say, "Well, I can't think of a reason why issue X is bad, but I can think of a reason why issue Y is bad, and issue X will lead to issue Y." Again, the most logical conclusion may very well be to support issue X while working to prevent issue Y. It is not to simply oppose both. Too many people use this argument as a reason to believe that issue X is wrong, but issue X is not wrong just because something that is wrong might follow it, and to think so is indeed a logical fallacy.

Here's a similar site: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

Why do they want them? Do they think the government can provide a service for them better, more effeciently than a private enterprise? Very few actually think that, but in many cases it doesn't stop them from preferring the government over private business, and there's a very simple reason for it. To receive something privately, they have to pay for it all themselves. To receive something from government, they usually get more than the actual tax money it costs them personally. They know that certain others will pay the tax and get nothing, but they don't care about that. Capitalism consists of voluntary transactions. Government services can never be completely voluntary, because government is not a resource. To give a service, it has to TAKE a resource from someone.

When it comes to domestic spending programs, Republicans seek to cut more than Democrats. Republicans control the presidency and both houses of congress right now.

I would agree, if history proved it happened an acceptable percentage of the time. But it simply has not.

On paper maybe so, but not in the real world.

Kind of like how heterosexuals want homosexuals to pay for their marriages but refuse to do the same in return? I do understand the problems with taxation and how it is often spent, and I agree that your points are very valid. We can't forget that government programs are often designed to help people who aren't able to help themselves or to protect people and maintain product quality, but I agree that we should try to cut government spending.

Yet they haven't cut spending; they've increased it dramatically. They've put us into a defict so that our children can pay for what we've spent. It may be the Republican ideal to cut spending, but I wish they'd do it sometimes.

History has in as much proven that the people who are afraid of going "too far" today are usually looked down upon for hurting others by the next generation. Yet if issue Y really is going too far, and if supporting issue X will always lead to issue Y, then there might be reason to not support issue X. Yet I would argue that usually there is a very easy way to prevent issue Y, but no one ever even attempts it. It is because people don't recognize this fallacy that things tend to go too far; if someone had just said, "let's allow issue X but prevent issue Y" then things likely never would have gone too far at all.

Slippery Slope is a fallacy because it assumes that since it has happened in the past in specific issues, that it will happen in all issues. That's not true. Hence why it is a fallacy, it deceptively categorizes all events has having such tendencies.

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

Not really, if the very minor financial breaks married heterosexuals get over homosexuals AND single people such as myself was the worst case of redistribution of wealth we had, we'd be in really good shape.

Cutting it is tough, it's hard to climb BACK UP the slippery slope - it's much easier not to SLIDE DOWN in the first place, as we've done so much in the last 100 years.

Holding the line on spending is more realistic than cutting it. Recognizing that issue x often leads to issue y is a good way to do it. Maybe we need to discuss examples. Can you name an issue X in the last 100 years; an increase in federal government spending, or a loss of individual liberty, that has been a good thing, and hasn't lead to something else? If so, how does it relate to the constitution?



You left out the word DOMESTIC. 9/11, Iraq etc. is another thread.



Looked down upon by liberals, with their personal definition of "hurting".

That's exactly right, because most people who support issue X already have issue Y in their crafty little minds. They know how incrementalism works. THAT is what history has proven.


You just said that it's a fallacy that things go too far, but since no one spoke up, things went too far!!!!!

Look at how much more government is involved in our everyday lives in 2005 than it was in 1905. Can you name a tax increase, or a loss of personal liberty, that made ONE change over that 100 year period? I can name several that made many little changes.