Following the great debates on this forum

[solzrules]

It has been said that those who are masters at debating have all of these logical phaillicies memorized.

The same goes for polliticians.

[TomDiehl]

But this week was next week, last week.

[edblysard]

No no no...
The Darkside paper, coupled with the Yoda principal clearly shows that Montana wheat farmers really grow rice, disguised as wheat.

Jeeze, you guys need to learn how to read a graph...[:D]

[Lord Atmo]

no. i'm right!


uhhhhh.....SD45

ok... now this topic has something to do with trains...alrightty


boxcarautoracktankcargondolaflatcarintermodalssuckAC4400CWES44DCSD60SD40-2SD70ACE

[jeaton]

You're wrong!!

[CShaveRR]

Just look at you guys!

[edblysard]

Is not!

[BaltACD]

Is not.

Is to!

[Anonymous]

Next time you follow a "debate" on this forum, notice how many times you see the following logical fallacies committed.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth.

*** hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.

Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid.

source:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man