A Brief Guide to Arguing Incorrectly, Logical Fallacies

With all the hubbub going on in this Post-11/7 world we live in, arguments at DailyKos are going up, way up. Tensions are rising; people are getting ready for the bloody 2008 Presidential Primary and people are beginning to argue very poorly. So I think it might be time for a small reminder about some ways NOT to argue.

Logical Fallacies, We all use them. Some more then others but we all use them. This diary is about a few of these logical fallacies, what logical fallacies are, when they are wrong to use, and when they are OK to use.

Full Disclosure: This was inspired by a high school ethics class focusing on debating governmental interference vs. personal liberty. All of these fallacies were pointed out to us during the original debate by our teacher.

What are Logical Fallacies?
Logical Fallacies are exactly what the name implies, arguments that seemed to be proved by logic. However the logic used for the argument is flawed, making the argument flawed by logic, thus the name Logical Fallacy.

Are Logical Fallacies always wrong?
No, there are some specific cases where some logical fallacies are O.K. to be used. The casual slippery slope argument (which I will go into later) is one such example.

What are some Logical Fallacies?
There are quite a few of them; I will name some of them along with an example in modern debate.

Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is when a person cites a person or group that does not have the qualifications to be an expert. Another example of an appeal to authority is when the majority experts disagree on the subject.

When global warming critics cite their "experts" that global warming is a myth, they are using the appeal to authority fallacy. The vast majority of relevant scientists agree that global warming is a serious issue. To discount the vast majority of scientists and instead place their "expert" as the most prominent voice in the field or as even a leading voice is a fallacy.

On that note I go to another Fallacy

Appeal to Popularity (the Bandwagon)
The Bandwagon argument holds that an opinion is right because large numbers of people support it. This is sometimes a fallacy, sometimes it isn’t. If an entire argument is based purely on the popularity of something it is a fallacy. However if the actual argument itself persuades people to get behind it, and THEN the appeal to popularity is cited, it is an allowable fallacy.

Polls have shown that the vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage. The Religious Right has taken to railing against "activist Judges" because they strike down popular legislation banning gay marriage. By basing their argument on the popularity of an idea, not the merits of it, they are committing the fallacy of appeal to popularity. We on the left also commit this fallacy from time to time, but this is not the place to point those out. Let the damned conservatives figure it out for themselves that sometimes we also use faulty logic.

Chimpy McFlightSuit’s and Turd Blossom’s Favorite fallacy:
Appeal to Force (the Fear Card)
This fallacy is when the arguer predicts a dangerous outcome should you support an opinion that is not the arguer’s.

Do I even have to do this one? Nah, we all know the fear card.

This election people were taking more showers then ever, if only to get of the slime from this fallacy:
Attacking the Person (Ad Hominem)
In this fallacy one attacks the person making the argument by doing a personal attack, attacking his/her associates’ interests or attacking the person by stating that he/she would gain from implementing this idea.

Ad Hominem is popularly used in attack ads, lots of slimy attack ads. Case and point, RNC ad against Harold Ford Jr. you know the one that had the white women asking him to "call me."

Moving on to the fallacy of
False Dilemma
False Dilemma is when one offers an incomplete list of options, purposefully neglecting other potentially popular options. One of the most common used fallacies in debate is coincidentally one of the most effective at getting people to supports things they don’t believe in.

Example: Stay the Course vs. Cut and Run. The two options that have been offered by BushCo and it got the point across fairly well. The media reported that the war was popular and people against were weak willed, so people jumped on the Bandwagon. But then a third rhetoric option was put forth, "strategic redeployment" or troop withdrawal. People started going to the third option once it was made available, by making the argument black and white the administration deprived the people of truly expressing their opinion on the war via the media.

I love snowboarding, and like most snowboarders I hate the icy fallacy of
Slippery Slope
Slippery Slope is when an arguer threatens a series of increasingly dire consequences from taking a small step against the arguer’s beliefs. This is one where it is acceptable to a point but sometimes it is outright foolishness.

Slippery Slope used correctly (a casual slippery slope): If we teach intelligent design we have to teach every idea about how humans came to be due to the separation of church and state, and if we don’t then we are disregarding the separation of church and state. To make this argument correctly you would have to be able to solidly connect the dots from A to B to C.

Slippery Slope used incorrectly: If we allow gay marriage, then the polygamists will be asking that they have marriage, which could lead to man-on-dog sex which would lead to the collapse of modern society. Huh? What did they just say? This is an example of when they don’t connect the dots very well, going from A to B to F to WTF?

It is time to Move On people to the fallacy of the
Straw Man
The straw man is the fallacy of refuting an extreme version of another’s argument, rather then the actual argument put forth. Quite often this involves putting words in your opponent’s mouth and making up arguments that you are going to refute. A clever ploy and it can be used quite effectively and legitimately if carefully constructed. If done right you can make your opponent defend a silly argument that they might normally not defend. This only works if you don’t stray too far from what your opponent actually said. The best straw man arguments are ones that aren’t fallacies at all, but logical extensions of the argument that your opponent actually made.

Straw Man arguments give me big headaches like massive ones; I have to take a Tylenol every time I describe an actual real-life straw man argument. So I think you guys can come up with examples of your own.

And moving to my favorite one of them all
Tu Quoque ("you too")

The Tu Quoque argument is simply to justify an error by pointing out that your opponent already did it. An error is an error people period.

I know it would be tempting to give the GOP a taste of their own medicine but let’s not make the tu quoque argument OK?

I hope this was helpful, and feedback on if I messed up any of the analysis would be most appreciated.