Hi all!
I have just recently completed a study I've been working on, listing and analyzing a number of commonly-used fallacies in Internet debate. I did it for the TWC, which has (IMO) more quality-control trouble due to size than the .Org has, but still I think and hope that it will be helpful to debaters here.
Well, I’ve been debating online for a little while, and I’ve seen an awful lot of fallacious arguments.
So here I have assembled a list of logical fallacies with brief explanations. I hope you guys will find it useful, and that you will keep these things in mind as you debate.
And I don’t mean to preach, because I’ve employed probably every one of these fallacious arguments myself at some point. In fact, researching this makes me cringe in memory of some stupid things I’ve said. (Isn’t learning great? You get to find out what an idiot you used to be!)
I am, of course, most definitely open to critiques, criticisms, and suggestions, and really this should be a discussion thread too.
Thanks to Google and Wikipedia, which I used to search various issues and gain a greater understanding of them.
Here it is.
NOTE: I have put the meat of the study in spoilers to save space. I would urge you to read them if you want to get anything out of this study. Not to toot my own horn, but I think it will be of much help to the debaters on this forum, in terms of helping you avoid fallacies, and also to help you call out others when they engage in fallacious arguments.
Both will enhance the quality of the forum, as well as give more meaning to your debate and make it more relevant and productive. Who knows? You might even learn something.
And lastly, the motto for this study, which you will find amusingly appropriate.
"Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur."
Anything spoken in Latin sounds profound.
1. Argumentum ad hominem
Latin: “argument against the individual”
Argumentum ad hominem is a debate tactic meant to devalue your opponent’s intelligence.
Person A makes statement
There is something objectionable about Person A
A’s statement must be false
Saying, “You’re stupid; go get an education,” is MUCH easier than methodically refuting a person’s arguments in a logical manner. And, usually, people use the ad hominem to make up for the fact that they have nothing of value to say.
Also, ad hominems can take the form of exaggerations.
People often call each other paranoid in debate. And sometimes people are (we will discuss slippery slope fallacy) paranoid, but remember the key problem of ad hominem:
Your opponent is not paranoid, or simplistic, or whatever you think you can call him, just because you say so. You should have some VERY good reasons before you suggest something like that. Generally, you should never do it.
Let me put it this way: you never CALL someone paranoid. You show why they are being paranoid and why their opinions are excessive or simplistic, etc.
But in a case like that, your opponent is never acting a certain way just because you say so or you’d like to think so. So don’t bother to say it bluntly; show why they are taking too extreme of a view on things, show them what you think is a more realistic view, and they should come to their conclusions by themselves.
Also, your methodology is very important in debate, because it’s easy to come across as hostile, especially if the other person is frustrated. It’s easy to infer anger into something you’re reading when you yourself are angry. And if you are angry, give yourself some cool-off time before you respond. You will come across better, and chances are that you’ll make your case more effectively too.
So do your best to have a positive tone. Don’t be a stone wall; don’t be a stick in the mud. Small concessions and little compliments can go a long way, although I’m not saying that you should make stuff up or flatter your opponent, as that is just a method of undermining someone.
Anyways, enough psychology. On to #2.
2. Argumentum ad verecundiam
Latin: “argument from authority”
Ad verecundiam is the inverse of the ad hominem.
Person A makes statement
Person A has a good and scholarly reputation
A’s statement must be valid
This is also a fairly common tactic. People always sound like they have an ironclad case when they tell you that “Professor So-and-so” agrees with their opinion. Well, I don’t need to tell you that there are an awful lot of experts in the world, and you can find an “expert” to back up just about any statement.
Therefore, if you cannot articulate and demonstrate YOURSELF why an opinion is valid, then for the purpose of your debate it really doesn’t matter if some expert agrees or not. This could be used by a person who knows he’s being beaten, basically saying “Well you might have beaten me but I’m sure there’s SOMEBODY out there who could beat you!”
3. Argumentum ad populum
Latin: “appeal to the people”
Ad populum is the notion that you are right because a lot of people agree with you. It’s a little bit like verecundiam, but it’s even worse because you’re just saying that “people out there” agree with you.
Some time ago, there were an aweful lot of people who thought that the world was suspended on the back of a giant tortoise. Yet, you see, the world is ROUND! Enough said about that; I think it’s pretty obvious.
4. Argumentum ad ignorantium
Latin: “argument to ignorance”
Ad ignorantium is the claim that a statement is true because it hasn’t been proven false, or false because it hasn’t been proven true. When someone makes a statement that hasn’t been proven true, you can’t say that it is false on that basis. You can just say what it is: not necessarily true.
Thus, ad ignorantium is essentially warping the burden of proof and setting the debate up such that you opponent must perfectly prove his point, or else you win. This is rather juvenile; the purpose of debate is to find solutions, not to win. So should you employ this debate, and get away with it, it will have been a hollow, meaningless victory.
Due to the nature of logic and exploration, mankind would still be trying to discover the means of making fire if ad ignorantium was considered valid. Every discovery that has been made has obviously begun as an unproven idea.
People had to explore the possibility that it might be true in order to discover it.
There are a couple of other similar fallacies that I’d like to cover here.
One is argument from incredulity:
“I don’t see how that could be possible, so it must not be true.”
This is an invalid statement. If you don’t see how something could be possible (even though you can’t prove that it’s NOT possible), then the REAL problem in this situation is that you don’t see very well.
The other similar fallacy is the Nirvana fallacy. Nirvana fallacy is a bit like obsessive-compulsive disorder.
It’s a common form of argumentum ad ignorantium, used like this in political debate:
“Your solution to this problem will not solve it to perfection, therefore it is wrong and my way is best.”
This is a common usage. However, real life is often not a matter of certainties and absolute solutions. Often you must enact whichever measure will do more good than the other. You can’t enact the one that’s perfect, because… it doesn’t exist.
Thus, Nirvana fallacy fails to realize that part of life is choosing the lesser of two evils, in a sense.
Now, there is a fine line to be observed with argumentum ad ignorantium.
In my view, you can say that you think your statement is true, but you cannot present it as FACTUAL just because there is no evidence against it. Conversely, another person is welcome to disagree with you, but he cannot claim your position to be certainly false.
Thus, you are welcome to give your opinion, but you should not propagate it or tout it as factual unless you have real, substantial evidence.
That is the nature of ad ignorantium; it’s sort of a vicious circle.
5. Argumentum ad misericordiam
Latin: “appeal to pity”
This is a fallacy that appears on the forum in various forms. It is VERY common in politics.
I’m doing the very best I can not to bring my personal political leanings into this, but let’s use a relevant example.
Health Care (Yes, sorry it’s kind of an American-centric example at the moment) What is something we are CONSTANTLY seeing in the health care debate today?
“My sister lives in Canada, and she needed an emergency operation and HAD TO WAIT IN LINE!!! She almost died, but we rushed her to the States and they got her in right away! US health care is wonderful as it is!”
And then you have the other side:
“My sister lives in the States, and she needed an emergency operation but SHE HAD NO INSURANCE!!! She almost died, but we rushed her to Canada where we were able to get her in without needing insurance. Private insurance companies are evil!!!”
Both examples are true; neither one is valid.
Because in any dete like this, there are millions of people involved. And out of those millions of people, you will no doubt find an example of private health care working marvelously, and you will find an example of socialized medicine working marvelously.
And if you base your argument on solitary examples, you and your opponent could be spamming news items at each other until doomsday.
To bring it home, I see many debates on the forum where people take a solitary news item and run away with it. I’m saying this only in hopes that such tactics will be discouraged. In political debate, we need to have more of a broad, landscaped view usually. There is a place for the ‘solitary news item,’ but it should be used SPARINGLY.
Another way this fallacy is used is to patronize people and bestow upon yourself a certain image which appeals to the emotions. A politician can go a long way with an image of “the poor man’s friend” even if he has lousy ideas.
6. Argumentum ad nauseum
Latin: “argument to the point of nausea”
That’s right; arguing until you’re blue in the face, so to speak. This is EXTREMELY relevant to the forum, because it takes hold on just about every major debate.
There is a point at which people expend their supply of relevant arguments and they have nothing new to bring to the table. However, people are by nature very proud, and they also like to have the last word.
And once they run out of new things to say, the debate usually degenerates into a shouting match. I remember one debate where this almost literally happened. I will tell you for the purpose of example.
I bear absolutely no ill will to the other guys in that debate, because I was just as guilty as them.
It was an abortion debate. And it’s not long before that debate becomes a moral/philosophical debate. And moral/philosophical debate means that it is subjective. And subjective means that there is no standard. And no standard means that everybody has their own meaning.
You cannot debate a topic in which everyone has their own meaning; it’s a mess. But we tried to.
And I’m sure you can imagine what happened. The debate basically became:
“You shouldn’t kill unborn babies!!!”
“Should TOO!”
“Should NOT!”
“Should TOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”
And that’s how it went. We were slightly more articulate than that, but basically we repeated exactly the same argument (or maybe two arguments) over and over, as if by saying it 100 times we would be more convincing than if we said it only 10 times. In the end, we realized that we had transformed the debate thread into a festering spam pit.
And that’s how a lot of debates go, and one of the overarching problems on the TWC. A lot of debates which, by all that is just, should just STOP with people agreeing to disagree, go on and on until they finally endure a painfully slow death.
So, the lesson is, that when you have nothing new to add, you should acknowledge this.
Now, that may mean that the nature of debate is that the topic cannot be proven one way or another by empirical evidence.
Or, you should consider the very real possibility that YOU… are… wrong. I know, I know, as impossible as it sounds, you may actually be wrong once or twice in your lifetime. So be a big boy/girl, admit it, and stop plaguing the TWC with tired old arguments that have been defeated already.
However, should you choose to hold the opinion you had before, that’s fine; Just don’t annoy everyone else with it unless you come upon some new evidence.
7. Reductio ad rediculum
Latin: “appeal to ridicule”
Now we come to another scourge on levelheaded debate: the strawman. The strawman argument is very common; so much so that it must just come naturally to people.
The strawman argument is basically stuffing words into your opponent’s mouth. You basically make up an argument and tell everyone, “this is the argument those people (your opponents) use!” Thus you make your opponent look ridiculous, and make yourself look prophetic.
You basically are trying to rig the debate. You set yourself up against a flawed premise, destroy it as planned, and project the results onto your opponent. This is foolish. Never presume to know all your opponent’s arguments like that.
Strawmen are bred by a lack of real opposition. If the only people with which you have discussion are people who AGREE with you, you will receive nothing but the best of your argument and the worst of the other side. After all, if anybody knew all the great arguments from the other side, they might be on the other side!
So, you content yourself with “devil’s advocate” arguments. Well, obviously your opponent agrees with you, so he’s not going to make it hard. He will feed you weak arguments (after all, he doesn’t know the other side’s strong arguments if you’re the only person he debates with), and you will feel brilliant.
Then you get out into the real world, and decide to have some opponents for breakfast. Suddenly you make the unpleasant discovery that your devil’s advocate opponent didn’t make a few points. So you decide to stuff your devil’s-advocate arguments into your opponent’s mouth, because you know you can beat those. Or, you just make the superficial assumption that you know all the arguments he will bring up, and decide to defeat them before he brings them up.
And thus strawmen are born.
Now, I want to briefly cover some different aspects of this fallacy.
Reductio ad absurdum is more or less the same thing. I will apply it to a manifestation of ad rediculum.
Ad absurdum is basically taking your opponent’s argument and carrying it out to an absurd conclusion, thus demonstrating that the argument itself is absurd.
I hate to do it, but I’m going to do it. I will take an example from the gun control debate, because it’s the best example I can think of. Honestly, if someone can put this in similar terms without actually using a real controversy, I will gladly substitute it, because I REALLY don’t want you to feel that this is cluttered with my own opinions.
Here goes:
“You want guns to be legal? WOAH! You might as well legalize…. ICBM’s!!!”
Well, it would be really stupid to allow ordinary people to possess nuclear weapons. So it’s really stupid to allow ordinary people to possess guns, right?
Eh… no. For the very simple reason that guns are not ICBM’s.
And people use this argument a lot. They equate things like guns to other things like tanks, land mines, and the like.
This tactic is reductio ad absurdum. Making a slightly (even if it’s only VERRRY slightly) flawed conclusion or analogy.
It would also be worth mentioning that analogies, by nature, are the weakest form of argument. If you have to make a comparison to something completely different to make your point, then chances are it’s because your analogy is flawed. And it is VERY easy to accidentally form a flawed analogy. That’s one reason why you discuss things with people of different opinions; to make sure that you don’t do things like that.
And, lastly, we have the Red Herring. Again, essentially the same idea.
In a way, the red herring is opposite than the form of this fallacy we just saw.
Instead of making an inconsistent conclusion to defeat another’s argument, the red herring is an inconsistent conclusion that YOU use to distract your opponent and make your position seem stronger than it really is. You’ve probably used this one on little kids before.
Now, practically speaking, many of these are basically the same. In common speech, people don’t say “ad absurdum,” they say “Red Herring.”
I’m simply taking the phrases and applying them to different aspects of this fallacy to help you understand the different appearances that the fallacy may take. This is the way my mind works; I’m completely open to suggestions and improvements.
And now, my friends, we shall depart from the glorious land of poignant Latin phrases, and discuss fallacies that (sadly) are not graced with such “profound” titles.
8. If-by-whiskey fallacy
Would a rose, by any other name, smell as sweet?
I don’t know about you, but when I started debating online, I could detect various ruses that my opponents used to mislead me or demean me.
Then I started researching logical fallacies, and I discovered that those tactics had names! I thought it was pretty neat.
Well, during my research for this study, I found the name of another common fallacy, known as a relativist fallacy: the if-by-whiskey fallacy.
Have you ever noticed, in a controversy, that those who support X will have an entirely different name for their position than the people who are against X? That is if-by-whiskey.
It comes from Noah S. Sweat, Jr., and his position on the issue of prohibition of alcohol.
Regarding alcohol, he said (taking parts of the speech):
“If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, and destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes bread from the mouths of little children, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the ale that is consumed when good fellows come together, that puts a song in their heart and laughter on their lips; if you mean Christmas cheer, then I am for it.”
It is a potent example of rhetoric and presentation. Consider a few modern examples, and you’ll realize that this is a natural thought pattern (people are prejudiced toward things they like) and very common:
One side calls them TERRORISTS; the other side calls them FREEDOM FIGHTERS
One side calls them BABY KILLERS; the other side calls it PRO-CHOICE
One side calls it a VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH; the other side calls it FAIRNESS
One side calls them ASSAULT WEAPONS; the other side says they’re no different other FIREARMS
Yes; in every controversy each side will pick a name that most suits their viewpoint. Certain names conjure up certain impressions. Thus, if you want people to support your cause, you will call yourself a freedom fighter because it sounds so noble and brave. If you are against someone else’s cause, you’ll call them terrorists because people will associate them with psychotic mass-murderers.
So always, ALWAYS remember the if-by-whiskey fallacy. In short, think critically; don’t take things like this at face value.
9. Slippery slope fallacy
Arguments as stepping-stones.
This is used almost every time someone dislikes a viewpoint, and in partisan politics it never ends.
Slippery slope suggests that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of relating events, causing massive unintended (and harmful) consequences.
Essentially, slippery slope is a conspiracy theory based upon the assumption that your opponent is inherently evil and devious, and supports certain ideals in order to facilitate dark, self-serving motives.
Thus, your thinking is that everything he does is merely a stepping stone to some devilish scheme.
The slippery slope, like most of these fallacies, is not inherently without foundation. For example, legal precedent means that a legal decision now WILL affect future decisions, and that is very important.
So let’s use another example. Since I used a pro-gun example, I might as well use an example from the other side.
Gun registration. It is the opinion of many people that gun registration is simply a method of finding out who owns guns, in preparation for taking them all away. I.e., put all guns on record so that we can take them away efficiently.
That could be an example of the slippery slope fallacy. However, as I said, there is a fine line between logical conclusion and slippery slope.
My own perspective, if I may inject it for a moment, is that gun registration has among its supporters, many people who openly acknowledge their desire to ban all firearms. Therefore, it might not be so fallacious to suppose that gun registration is a means of doing that.
However, again discretion is paramount, and gun control supporters are not demon-possessed. I will discuss this in a moment.
I’ve even had people anticipate this from me. I recall recently that, although I at least didn’t mean to be excessive, my opponent made a little joke that he was making plans for world domination.
And that’s the way we think sometimes. Let’s break it down.
You have an opinion. Obviously, it’s in your best interest to form opinions that are accurate, relevant, and productive. Thus, your opinions at least SHOULD be the things that you think are the best, whether in personal relationships or in politics.
So you think that your way is the best, and that’s not necessarily bad. But then you see that someone else has a different opinion. Well, as far as you see, your opinion is in the better interest of mankind. Thus, your opponent’s opinion, being different and/or contradictory to your opinion, is wrong and flawed.
So you wonder, why does he have a different opinion, when mine is in the best interest of mankind? Well, the only conclusion is that he WANTS to subvert and manipulate in order to grab power, money, and influence. It’s just human nature to think that way.
Thus, it would be a good idea for you to remember that, generally, your opponent is, in all honesty, supporting what he thinks is best. Now obviously there are subversive people out there, and there are lots of them. You need to use your discretion.
Remember, however, that this is an Internet forum, and your opponent has absolutely nothing to gain by supporting his opinion. If his opinion was formed for the purpose of world domination, he would be out running for office, not debating from his house.
So, referring back to the gun issue, you can be fairly confident that your opponent (in the gun debate) honestly believes that either gun freedom or gun control will be the best option. In this case, that depends on their effect on crime.
So for the purpose of internet debate, the odds are that someone serious enough to sit down and discuss something with you has honest intentions, and thus you should err on the side of avoiding the slippery slope fallacy.
So in summary of that psychoanalysis… use discretion.
10. False dilemma
You are either for me, or against me.
The false dilemma is also common in debate. It is essentially making the invalid assumption that there are only TWO options in the case you are considering: your idea, and your opponent’s idea.
There is no middle ground, no compromise, and no third option.
Creating this illusion often makes it easier for a debater to force his opinion, and perhaps try to widen the margin between your idea and his. Even though both ideas need improvement, he can gain leverage by stating that his idea is better, and applying the false dilemma.
I mentioned earlier that in real life, we have no perfect solutions, and that sometimes in debate, the best position is that which chooses the lesser of two evils.
If you take that idea too far, you will in fact create a false dilemma. Maybe your idea in it’s pure form is the lesser of two evils, but what if you combined parts of your opponents’ idea? Remember that you are not infallible.
Here is a great example from Wikipedia:
There are a lot of car accidents on this road. We must reduce the number of car accidents. There would be no car accidents if we closed the road. Therefore we must close this road.
Remember, there is a thin line between legitimacy and fallacy; discretion is important with this issue.
11. Godwin’s law
You Nazi you!
Godwin’s law is based in humor, but (sadly) has a very relevant application in internet debate.
As you know, the mask of anonymity tends to transform otherwise reasonable people into obnoxious trolls who flame, exaggerate, and insult. (Don’t be one, by the way.)
Thus Godwin’s law was formed out of half-joke-half-truth.
The essence of Godwin’s law is, that whenever “Hitler” or “Nazi” enter a debate, you can consider it closed. In internet debate, it is sometimes popular to grab an opponent’s argument and compare it with Nazi Germany.
This ties into a couple other fallacies we’ve covered: first, the slippery slope fallacy.
You are making the assumption that, because this person’s idea loosely corresponds to something that occurred at some point in Hitler’s regime that this idea will LEAD to a new Germany!
As absurd as it sounds when you put it that way, people use it. Besides slippery slope fallacy, it is also an ad hominem.
Let’s face it. Why do people like to make comparisons to Nazis? SHOCK VALUE. It makes people recoil in surprise and disgust, hopefully alienating your opponent’s viewpoint.
Now, there is a definite place for comparing contemporary measures with the past. In fact, history is CRUCIAL, especially in political debate. However, history can, of course, be misapplied, and this is a case of misapplication.
Sadly, real politicians even use this tactic. Those who follow recent US politics have probably heard a number of politicians recently refer to their counterparts as “SS storm troopers” or “brown shirts.” I’m sure that this has occurred in every country at some time or another.
This is ENTIRELY inappropriate, and it is my personal opinion that any politician who is that desperate to take a shot at his opponent should receive a GREAT deal more criticism than they have.
Our legislators are supposed to be an example to citizens and the world, and as such should be FAR above such petty and (frankly) juvenile measures.
12. Non Sequitur
Latin: “it does not follow”
Yes! Another profound Latin phrase!
Non sequitur is essentially a completely random statement thrown into a discussion. While it is quite possible (in internet debate, at least) that someone doing this is simply out of their mind, hung over, or very tired, it can also be used to distract or confuse an opponent.
It is definitely a tactic to be aware of, as a devious debater could use non sequitur to start a chain reaction in the debate; first causing confusion, and then perhaps ridiculing you for being confused, and so on.
For example:
Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fish
Although that isn’t the sort of thing you would see in debate, you get the idea of the nature of non sequitur.
Finally, I just want to note that I have already gotten feedback, and there are some things that I intend to change already. Basically there are caveats to the rule, and I need to communicate that a little better.
