The above is just a partial list of statements that are overused, overrated, and generally only serve to annoy people as well spoil the fun out of the discussion for others, and as well as drive people to differ from the original topic of the argument.
- An argument does not necessarily need all premises to be true, factual, or correct for it to be logically valid. Arguments can still contain false information (Premises) and still be logically valid.
- Fallacious doesn't always mean weak, incorrect, untrue or non-factual. There are often one or more exceptions to the rules of many fallacies.
- Beware the argumentum ad logicam (AKA argument from fallacy fallacy). https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/51/Argument-from-Fallacy. This is quite a common thing for people to do when they first come across information about fallacies; I also know this from experience since I used to frequently do the same, and still at times do but very rarely nowadays. However, this doesn't just apply to information in regard to logical fallacies; it can apply to many things; sometimes when we come across things that seem novel to us cognitive biases come running to the surface, and we become prone to seeing patterns where none exist.
- Beware the Fallacy Bully. Unfortunately, you may find people that think they're logically superior to you, and will be quick as hellfire to point out any fallacy they suspect you have made; that's not what Critical Thinking is about and rational discourse is about! https://criticalthinkeracademy.com/courses/informal-fallacies/lectures/1106563
Note: Two points previously included in the above in regard to what constitutes as either a weak or strong argument have been omitted subject to further revision.
The above is also basically just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to logic and argumentation. Here's also some more information and with some example in reference to one or more of the above points:
Arguments need premises and a conclusion (the conclusion is also
sometimes known as a premise too). Premises by the way are basically
just reasons given to support a conclusion. Now, for the argument to
logically follow the premises do need to be assumed true although they
may be technically false. Here is an example of an argument in standard
form where the information is technically untrue but logically valid:
Premise 1: "All brown haired people are bad-tempered."
Premise 2 "My uncle has brown hair."
Conclusion: "Therefore, my uncle is bad-tempered."
As
you can see the above argument logically follows even though one of the premises is false.
Here's another example but one which does contain true premises but the argument is logically invalid:
Premise 1: Beer contains alcohol.
Premise 2: Wine contains alcohol.
Conclusion: Therefore, Beer is Wine.
Now, as you can see from this example the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises even though both premises are true.
Other important things to consider include the following:
- The use of emotive language is not an appeal to emotion fallacy. It might also help us to note that we human beings are not quite like "Spock" yet; we are in fact creatures more of emotion than of logic. Furthermore, even if someone is expressing how they feel in an argument that does not automatically undermine the truth and/or validity of their argument in its entirety. All too often I have come across people that simply claim someone is
making a fallacy of emotion simply because they were merely using
emotive language; this is quite common among people that are new to
fallacies, logic and argumentation though. In short, the use of emotive language in conjunction with a strong and logically valid argument can be highly persuasive to both the hearts and brains of many! https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/29/Appeal-to-Emotion
- Deferring to authority is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Deferring to authority is a reliable and helpful heuristic where appealing to authority is indeed a fallacy. Here's also an excerpt from a reputable source and a link to that source: Here is an excerpt from a reference on the "Appeal to Authority fallacy and the link to that reference: "Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
In regard to getting lost in arguments about the definition of certain terms it might be helpful to try:
- If you're not the OP then try to examine the content of the main message that is being conveyed within the argument and go from there instead of changing the way the OP has defined certain terms (AKA changing the parameters). This will actually help you a great deal with your debating and argumentation skills.
- If you are the OP and this is being done then try to agree on an idea so you can make progress with the main message that you're trying to convey. If that doesn't work, then omit the use of certain terms, try to keep it as simple as possible and continue to convey the main message. If all else fails and the other person is continuing to argue according to their own changed parameters then you are most likely wasting your time; move onto someone else who is much more able to keep on topic.
Just one other thing in regard to above is to also remember that some people will often make the
Definist Fallacy when regarding certain subjects. This is done to make the position of user who is committing this fallacy much easier for him/her to defend. In addition to committing this fallacy the user doing it is also cheating themselves the potential to learn, progress, and develop their debating and argumentation skills. Reference:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-846
Lastly, just to reiterate on a point I made earlier one other thing to take into account is those of us who have a deep interest in logic, psychology, philosophy, and argumentation etc is that when we come across new things' relation we may become overzealous and as a result start to see patterns where none exist. I guess the best thing here is to study the same subject material at least more than once; probably 3 or more times.
References and further resources (Some free and some Premium):
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: in.Incomplete list    persons argument   list   person  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do like this and agree with you hear. This way of engaging also helps with one's own continues learning and personal development too I might add.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: spot-on    Users   post   site  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: waste of time    semantics   rest    
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
It could be rephrased better, but what i meant was that "subject matter is arguing" or rather "arguments are arguing" -not the people behind them. U can argue that the policies done to Jewish people in the Second world war -time era were great for keeping the population growth in check, thus giving greater chance for rest of the people to sustenance.
And if u do so in a logical, argumented and reasoning way I'd gladly take you up on the debate.
Debate is made to test the reasoning alone, and only it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also, a lot of the other things you said in this statement you made are just flat out wrong. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It's a fallacy because you are referring to someone else's knowledge rather than your own to justify an argument. Which shows us, the people reading the post and those that do understand logic, that you don't know what your talking about.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
"It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.52  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: logical fallacy    wrong point   whole argument   argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
Before you commit a fallacy by attacking the credibility of another you can pause for a bit and try to remember it's about the arguments.
It's also a good practise to quote the direct passages that are being referred. This is just to make sure that when the comment chain reaches a 10+ message length that it's still actually feasible to verify who said and what. And also to keep the interpretations to a minimum.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
secondly, I did mention what it is you said in my reply. It was your statement about the appeal to authority fallacy.
"It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: logical fallacy    statement   authority fallacy   appeal  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Arguments need premises and a conclusion (the conclusion is also sometimes known as a premise too). Premises by the way are basically just reasons given to support a conclusion. Now, for the argument to logically follow the premises do need to be assumed true although they may be technically false. Here is an example of an argument in standard form where the information is technically untrue but logically valid:
Premise 1: "All brown haired people are bad-tempered."
Premise 2 "My uncle has brown hair."
Conclusion: "Therefore, my uncle is bad-tempered."
As you can see the above argument logically follows even though the premises are technically false. I will grant that there is at least one thing I could have improved here which is perhaps phrasing what I said a bit better to avoid any confusion that might have led to this particular response. My OP will be edited to try to ensure that confusion like this doesn't happen again.
Here's another example but one which does contain true premises but the argument is logically invalid:
Premise 1: Beer contains alcohol.
Premise 2: Wine contains alcohol.
Conclusion: Therefore, Beer is Wine.
Having the privilege of actually speaking with and studying a certain amount of stuff with both logicians and philosophers I can confirm that at least according to my own experience with them they don't talk like this. Furthermore, I am pretty confident they will confirm that what I have said from above is correct. However, If you do think there is a flaw in my argument here and you want to know if a Logician does too then feel free to ask one of them here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies. Not only will you find Logicians here that will be able to clarify any errors you will also experience how they actually communicate to other people.
Firstly, the point being referred to here was not wrong, albeit I will grant that I could have worded things a little better. Secondly, I am not entirely sure that at least an informal argument can be concluded as completely flawed based on one minor error in detail. It just doesn't make much sense to me to generally say that "just because you made a minor error then everything you say is wrong, and your whole argument is flawed."
I have just examined my OP again and cannot find anywhere within it that I stated or implied this bit here.
If I may I would like to rephrase this is so it is more valid. So, If something (not someone says) is logically wrong or factually wrong then it is wrong. Just because someone says something is wrong does not mean it is wrong.No one is obliged to point out the errors in reasoning of others. With that being said I agree it is helpful to try to get the other person to see the other side that we ourselves deem to be more logical and valid. However, there are good and bad ways of being helpful in a debate; you can either be an a*hole and say something like "You made a fallacy, you're wrong, aha, one up for me!" or you can be a bit more diplomatic and civil in your approach.
It appears that you most Ilikely didn't read property what I actually said here. I never said that "Appeal to authority" is not a fallacy. What I said was this which you can also scroll up verify was this:
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: thanks man    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well, thanks for this post, but I am not Aini. I am sure you meant me when you mentioned the statement about "the appeal to authority"
Secondly, as already pointed out in a previous post I never said that an "appeal to authority" (AKA argumentum ad verecundiam)" was not a fallacy.
Thirdly, thanks to your response I was prompted to make some minor adjustments to my original post so it makes for easy reading, and that I am grateful for. Well, at least I hope it makes for easier reading haha.  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
As for the other bit you said I don't know what you're referring to as perfectly legitimate?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra