Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Syd Midnight
Sep 23, 2005

to put it another way, with apologies for the anachronistic homophobic language

Grandmother of Five posted:

i don't read d&d, but it seems to me that it is hard to beat this guy in debate because when you point out how he has been unreasonably wrong and stupid about everything you're likely to break some incestuous high-school debate team competition rules.

when people are serious about debating, they basically agree that it is too overpowered to say that fascism bad by using illegal moves like "slippery slope" arguments. it's like the sport of fencing where you can't just do big cool overhand swings and cleave your opponent in two, you have to pose in extremely gay stances and move in an extremely gay way in order to score points with your dinky floppity sort-of-sword, and, well, nobody's got the moves like this guy

what happens when you cross Roberts Rules of Order with TV Tropes

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Syd Midnight
Sep 23, 2005

ight8 posted:

I must admit, before I become roadkill in my own post, that I'm not as conversant in debate as many others. This book helps me to understand a complex multifaceted area that is not within my realm of talents. So I appreciate good recommendations and advice.

I recommend bookmarking a list of logical fallacies, like the one on wikipedia, although I'm sure there's many, many more. But I'd also advise avoiding the Fallacy Fallacy, which is the logical fallacy that arguments containing logical fallacies are therefore incorrect.

edit: Argumentum ad logicam according to the wikipedia article, which also provides examples illustrating just how insufferable it is, but I'll give you this example for free

Syd Midnight fucked around with this message at 01:54 on May 12, 2017

Syd Midnight
Sep 23, 2005

ight8 posted:

If I can refute even one argument with what I've learned in this book, I think it's paid for itself.

Yeah, but what if you're wrong? You will have been corrupted by your thirst for power, using Appeal to Logic into a weapon for silencing others regardless of their truth. There is more to life than victory in battle. What will it have cost you then, Darth ight8?

Syd Midnight
Sep 23, 2005

ight8 posted:

I see what you are saying though Syd. If a person doesn't like veggies (or fruits), then they are under no obligation to enjoy them. This doesn't change the fact that tomatoes are a fruit, and they have healthy benefits.

In what contexts? In a culinary context, tomatoes are considered to be vegetables. They may also be legally considered vegetables for tariff purposes. In a botanical context, they are fruits, but more specifically berries. And they're definitely not a health benefit to someone with a tomato allergy. Whether facts are right or wrong or facts or opinion can most definitely change depending on context!

A list of logical fallacies is not much use without knowing how to spot them in ones own beliefs or when to ignore them in others. Rationalwiki's is probably helpful here. Don't let the name fool you, it's a good resource for avoiding the "I am rational and logical so I'm right" kind of traps that approaching debate as gamesmanship can lead to. It's a good place to start. Certainly better than listening to me, I'm pretty full of poo poo.

  • Locked thread