[Update: edited intro per suggestion in comments]
Here's the important thing: do you really understand the arguments of your opponents? Really? Do you understand them well enough to defend them on Keith Olbermann's show? Because if you don't understand why any rational person would be writing the things you're reading, then you aren't successfully debating; you're just shouting.
He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
John Stuart Mill
This diary is a list of common logical fallacies. I'm hoping that this helps people be a little more self-aware, although I'm rather pessimistic on that score. The idea is to recognize these fallacies in part so you can point them out, but also so you can realize that you are committing them if other people point them out (or, if you're not, so you can clarify yourself and show why you are not).
Ad Hominem Fallacy
"Ad Hominem" means "towards the person" in Latin. An Ad Hominem Fallacy is where you attack the person to undercut their argument.
Examples:
You are just saying that because you're an asshole.
Since you admit to voting for Nader, I can safely assume that everything you say is bullshit.
Insults are "ad hominem" but do not necessarily constitute logical fallacies. I'm really sick of people saying dismissing arguments as "ad hominems" because they are insulting. Here's an example of an insulting argument that is not fallacious:
There is no credible evidence that the invention of television was a direct cause of the Nazi Holocaust, you stupid fuckwit.
This is not a fallacy because the primary statement — that there is no credible evidence that the invention of television was a direct cause of the Nazi Holocaust — is factually true and logically cogent. The part about the opponent being a stupid fuckwit is subjectively true and difficult to deny if they actually said that the invention of television was a direct cause of the Nazi Holocaust.
Straw Man Fallacy
The "straw man" is an analogy to a physical fight. Instead of fighting your opponent, you build a person out of straw, assert that this straw person is your opponent and have a fight with it instead; naturally, you win the fight.
This is the most common fallacy because there are so many ways to commit it. The most frequent form is people telling their opponents what they just said or why they think. Here are some examples:
Kate Kossack: People in rural areas have fewer available health care providers than people in urban areas.
Kent Kossack: I see, so you're saying that urban blacks have it easy and just go get health care whenever they want. You're a racist.
Kyle Kossack: I'd love to see Sarah Palin be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Krishna Kossack: You're saying that because if the Republicans run a woman, then the Democrats will have to and you really want Hillary to return to presidential politics.
Red Herring
The straw man is a specific subclass of a broader fallacy: the red herring. This term comes from the "sport" of fox hunting and refers to a dried (red in color) herring uses to mask the fox's scent and make the chase more difficult.
In debate, a red herring is any piece of irrelevant information introduced in the course of the discussion.
Examples:
Kashawn Kossack: The Catholic Bishops say that the Stupak Amendment imposes the same restrictions that the Hyde Amendment has been imposing for decades.
Kiko Kossack: The Catholic Bishops also covered up child abuse.
The fact that the Catholic Bishops covered up child abuse does not relate to whether or not the Stupak Amendment is the same as the Hyde Amendment. The molestation issue is a red herring.
Now, Kashawn's claim from the Bishops is true, however the Stupak Amendment has consequences in the private insurance market which the Hyde Amendment had not previously caused. For this reason, the Bishops' argument fails.
What fallacy were the Bishops using? None. They were just wrong. Just because you don't commit any logical fallacies doesn't mean your conclusions are correct.
Consequently, just because you do commit a logical fallacy doesn't mean that your conclusions are incorrect. It is possible to be right for the wrong reasons. Example:
We should get our troops out of Afghanistan because Bush might get back into office and make an even bigger mess.
Obviously, Bush's terms are up, so he's not going to ever be back in office. Still, the conclusion that we need to get our troops out of Afghanistan might still be justified — just not for that reason.
There are many, many more logical fallacies being penned here at an alarming rate, but the above trio are the main ones. If we could cut down on those, it would be like combating climate change by shutting down coal-powered electric generation; sure, there's still be plenty of carbon-emission left, but so much less.
Here is an awesome site to learn more:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/...