Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality: Difference between revisions
(in progress) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[Logical fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy] are arguments whose premises somehow fail to support their conclusions. In debate, these fallacies ''tend'' to be based on inference (informal fallacies) rather than explicitly stated in the strict, logically fallacious sense (formal fallacies). They are easy to learn and very easy to spot thereafter. Identifying and deconstructing fallacuious arguments should be an important part of your debate strategy. | |||
This page lists a number of common fallacies of argumentation. | |||
==Straw Man== | ==Straw Man== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 16: | ||
A ''guilt by association'' fallacy would work similarly. For example, [[Nikki Craft]] attempts to discredit the late [[Ralph Underwager]] by referring to his interview with [[Paidika]], and [[Paul Okami]] by suggesting that undesirable groups use his work to their advantage. None of this alters the arguments' merit. | A ''guilt by association'' fallacy would work similarly. For example, [[Nikki Craft]] attempts to discredit the late [[Ralph Underwager]] by referring to his interview with [[Paidika]], and [[Paul Okami]] by suggesting that undesirable groups use his work to their advantage. None of this alters the arguments' merit. | ||
===False compromise=== | |||
===Tendentious comparison=== | |||
Whilst we are unable to find reliable sources that document the use of this argument, it is clearly fallacious. | |||
This is in effect the opposite of a false compromise, in the sense that two extreme (or otherwise opposing) positions are presented, but in this case, they are both endorsed. By endorsing a patently valid argument of the opposition and/or using it to justify the "complexity" of a situation, the proponent gives themselves clearence to make a less valid or invalid argument of their own. The argument is regularly used in the child-oppression propaganda of paid establishment figureheads such as [[Tanya Byron]]. For example, Byron and others often argue that although the internet has opened up "new opportunities" for minors, it also poses a considerable threat. The implication that mentioning one point somehow validates or lends credibility to the other is demonstrated by the fact that the two points are so often mentioned in close proximity to each other. | |||
==Others== | ==Others== | ||
Revision as of 16:40, 27 December 2008
[Logical fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy] are arguments whose premises somehow fail to support their conclusions. In debate, these fallacies tend to be based on inference (informal fallacies) rather than explicitly stated in the strict, logically fallacious sense (formal fallacies). They are easy to learn and very easy to spot thereafter. Identifying and deconstructing fallacuious arguments should be an important part of your debate strategy.
This page lists a number of common fallacies of argumentation.
Straw Man
The Straw man is a common logical fallacy, in which the opponent builds an exaggerated, caricatured or ludicrous version of your argument. They may simply parade the stupidity of the straw man, or take what you said out of context, and then argue against it. An example of parading / floating a straw man is as follows:
- "The censorers are coming! They're going to stop the free exercise of "luring" little kids into pornography or sex slavery! GAWD HELP US ALLL!1111" (DaninGraniteCity, IIDB, 2006)
In a more dangerous example, someone may establish that you are trying to force yourself upon children, by relaxing the age of consent (in fact, you advocate no law that requires children to behave sexually at all). They may then build a detailed critique of such a straw man, i.e. they will burn the straw man. Always point out that they are arguing aimlessly, and don't try to defend opinions that have been attributed to you via the straw man. Criticise the assumptions that they make, and maybe even take what they say to it's ludicrous, logical conclusion, i.e. a rational straw man.
Association Fallacy
Make sure to point out association fallacies, in which an opponent may say that, for e.g. most swingers (who are sexually liberated people) think lowly of sex with minors. This would be honor by association, i.e. the swingers, with whom the ultimate title of 'sexual liberation' is identified 'think lowly' of our most important arguments, which must therefore be false ideals of liberation. The opponent might as well say that house music is dire, since classical musicians (the 'only true musicians') supposedly denounce it as so. The 'swinger' argument is also faulty because it assumes that such people are the model for sexual liberation, when in fact they are just one subculture, one thread of the cloth. The argument also puts beliefs into our swingers' heads, when in fact, they may be even more liberal than most regarding child sexuality. If this is so, maybe we are more entitled to this fallacy!
A guilt by association fallacy would work similarly. For example, Nikki Craft attempts to discredit the late Ralph Underwager by referring to his interview with Paidika, and Paul Okami by suggesting that undesirable groups use his work to their advantage. None of this alters the arguments' merit.
False compromise
Tendentious comparison
Whilst we are unable to find reliable sources that document the use of this argument, it is clearly fallacious.
This is in effect the opposite of a false compromise, in the sense that two extreme (or otherwise opposing) positions are presented, but in this case, they are both endorsed. By endorsing a patently valid argument of the opposition and/or using it to justify the "complexity" of a situation, the proponent gives themselves clearence to make a less valid or invalid argument of their own. The argument is regularly used in the child-oppression propaganda of paid establishment figureheads such as Tanya Byron. For example, Byron and others often argue that although the internet has opened up "new opportunities" for minors, it also poses a considerable threat. The implication that mentioning one point somehow validates or lends credibility to the other is demonstrated by the fact that the two points are so often mentioned in close proximity to each other.
Others
Other fallacies include personal attacks, circular arguments, non sequiturs, appeals to popularity, authority, pity and emotion. You will automatically pick up on a lot of these, but it is best to read up on logical fallacies, so that you can increase your vigilance, and avoid making a confused or emotional comment yourself (maybe in response to a logical fallacy that you 'can't quite put your finger on').