Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter > Discussion and Debate - The Philosopher's Plaza

Debating Techniques, Terms, and Ideas: A Guide

(1/2) > >>

Jubal:
I'm going to pin and slowly extend a glossary of ideologies, debating techniques, logical fallacies, and so on for use in this section. I'll subheader each type (so for example, the "logical fallacies" section) then enter stuff under that. If there's anything you particularly think should be in there, or you think my definitions are wrong, then do say so.

LOGICAL FALLACIES
These are flaws in arguments which it is useful to be able to spot, with their technical names. Internet names of these are also given as entries.

Ad Hominem
Attacking the person rather than their argument, e.g. "You may think llamas are better than wallabies - however, your argument is invalid because you are an imbecile." This is clearly not true; they may be an imbecile, but who they are has no effect on the validity of their reasoning.argument where they have proven nothing.

Appeal to Popularity
Stating that something is correct because everyone thinks so. "Wallabies are deadly, because 80% of people think they are more dangerous than alpacas." That 80% can, obviously, be wrong - their opinions have no bearing on how dangerous wallabies are. People used to think the earth was the centre of the universe, it doesn't mean that because people thought that it was true.

Circular Argument
An argument where the basic premise is the same as the final conclusion. For example, "There is no alternative to llama farming. Because there is no alternative to llama farming, it would be pointless trying to invest in research into other forms of farming. Because other forms of farming have not been researched, they cannot be used in practical purposes. For this reason, there is no alternative to llama farming." Essentially this debater has just created an argument where they have proven nothing - the conclusion relies on itself being true and has no other evidence to back itself up.

Strawmanning
Creating a "strawman" is the technique whereby the debater misrepresents their opponent's argument, creates a similar but less coherent version, then knocks THAT down instead of the original. This is a very common tactic in political debating, particularly where the sides are "playing to the gallery" and trying to convince a third party that their opponents have bogus arguments.

Example:
Person 1: "Wallabies are better than llamas, because if a llama and a wallaby fought the wallaby would win and that's pretty cool."
Person 2: "Animals that can easily kill people are a menace to our society; wallabies are therefore a real problem whereas llamas should be respected."

Person 2 has created a strawman; person 1 simply stated that a wallaby was better at fighting than a llama; person 2 created the strawman argument from that saying that wallabies can easily kill people. By extending their opponent's argument, person 2 now has something he can argue against far more easily.


IDEOLOGIES - POLITICAL
This section is for political views on subjects such as the size & power of the state, distribution of wealth, etc.


IDEOLOGIES - RELIGIOUS & ETHICAL
This is for different branches of thought in religion and ethics. There is a clear cross-over with politics, but having them as two sections helps avoid confusion and aids finding the right bits (so for a debate on abortion or god, go here, for taxation or wars, go to "Ideologies - Political").

Phoenixguard09:
Don't you dare bring wallabies into this Jubal! Don't do it man!

Spoiler (click to show/hide) I kid of course. :D Perhaps sarcasm, irony and the like might also have a place?

Jubal:
Yeah, I'll do a section for rhetorical techniques at some point which will include those.  :)

Pentagathus:
Lawl I read debating as dating. Was highly disappointed after clicking on the thread.

Jubal:
I can write a dating advice thread if you really want me to, I doubt it would go down terribly well though :P

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page