10 More Things You Should Never Do In An Argument.steemCreated with Sketch.

in #life8 years ago (edited)

Ten more of many rules we should follow any time we are presenting or defending an argument. Do not be surprised when someone calls you out on your logical fallacy if presented.

1:
Never say that if we let one thing happen, then another thing will follow, so we shouldn't let first thing happen. ("Slippery Slope")

2:
Never apply circumstances, while making certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing sufficient justification. ("Special Pleading")

3:
Never ask a question that can't be answered without appearing guilty. ("Loaded Question")

4:
Never erroneously believe that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events. ("Gambler's Fallacy")

5:
Never say that because an authority thinks something, that it must be true. ("Appeal to Authority")

6:
Never say that because something is 'natural' it is valid. ("Appeal to Nature")

7:
Never say that one part of something has to be applied to all parts of it, or that the whole must apply to its parts. ("composition/division")

8:
Never use an isolated example instead of compelling evidence. ("anecdotal")

9:
Never use emotion in place of reason. ("appeal to emotion")

10:
Never reinterpreting evidence in order to stop the refutation of a persons position. ("No True Scotsman")

Have fun in debates kicking some ass and remember what Joseph Joubert says. 8D

Sort:  

none of the text is from anywhere. the picts have a scorce at the bottom left. fuck off with your flagging

Hey!
Nice to see your rep back up!
I like your post because I am an avid debater. I like getting my voice out there and making a scene.
Not because I am an attention seeker, but because I think I am right...LOL
:D

Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it. xD

all right! good post. i have a couple that i have been looking at for a while. which fallacy or fallacies do you think, would best be used to include, the obviously fallacious, wrong side of history.
next, we often hear someone using the swing of the pendulum to explain why things happen historically. i have my own ideas. i'd like to see if you come up with something i've missed.

Wrong side of history, that is used so much recently. lol

I have/need to look "swing of the pendulum" up now and think more about it but as right now I have always looked at that saying as a sophomoric expression for Oscillatory motion. Now I believe that it is a real thing but I also think people that use that saying are not thinking about quantum physics because to say it is an oscillatory motion is to say it has no random patterns or variables. At the same time we still don't know if quantum physics is truly random or if we just see it that way as of right now. That is like asking if pi is truly random or if there is a pattern hidden inside it we have yet to discover.

Maybe it is the oppsite of the gamblers? so Reverse Gambler's Fallacy"? I"m not sure if that is a real thing.
"Gamblers fallacy" would think if heads came up 5 times it would be best to bet on tails not realizing each coin flip is an independent act, the "reverse gamblers fallacy" would think the coin flip would be heads again because it happened 5 times already? I'm not sure. good question I must look into it now. xD

so, i've been toying with this idea. have you read cat's cradle? there is this part about mccabe and bokonon, the two guys who take over the island. mccabe becomes the military dictator and lives in the city. bokonon becomes the religious leader and lives in the forest. they play off against each other and because two dominant parts of the population can be played against each other, they gain control of the whole island. this is what is being done to us, societally, with the Reps and Dems. what would you think about a show, for steemit. you and i, could gin up a fictitious argument, maybe one to demonstrate to everyone how stupid "the leftys" vs "the rhinos" really are. generate some drama, increase the value of the content around here and maybe get a few more votes as a result. nothing dishonest, mind you. in fact, this message right here is now recorded in the blockchain and, i'm sure some lefty will eventually try to crucify me with it. i don't mind people finding out about it, i just wouldn't want to ruin the drama by having anyone twig to it too soon. it'd be kind of like the blog war that Ender's brother and sister had as demosthenes and locke in Ender's game. i feel like i'm pitching a movie or a revolution. i've no experience with this. there might even be legal constraints but there is fiction on tv and radio all the time. i guess orson welles caused a panic and went to jail. so, no panics then. what do you think? am i way out in left field? i hate sports metaphors. i could even look around and see what kind of arguments are popular and lucrative. no vegan stuff. i don't want anyone hurt. public notice could even be put in the blockchain, not anywhere too immediately obvious. i wouldn't want to spoil the magic. if this sounds sketchy or insane just forget it, no harm. just throwing it out. it'd be kind of like the people encouraging steemians to make bots and add-on software to modify steemit. this would be more of a bot made out of public arguments to get people excited about debate. just like public debate and argument on the tv news. really, this is kind of like the beginnings of tv or radio, when the technologies were first invented. there were no shows. except now anyone who can afford and operate a smartphone can access it, so, the hard work is all done. it is like steemit is the frontier and there aren't any pioneers or natives. i feel like i'm missing something obvious and there is a whole industry devoted to this already. think about it, anyway. maybe reply on another flagged post. it could all be done just right out in public with what amounts to announcements on posts. it might draw more attention that way. i don't know. do you know any tv producers, or events organizers who might have an idea? and i laughed at people with degrees in communications. remember anything said here is public. anyone will be able to find it easily if they think to look. if you decline, i might make this comment into a post, just add a fictitious circumstance and see what it does. probably only my core followers would even read it. i think that covers everything. any thoughts? remember, public. not that you wouldn't.

cats cradle was the first kurt Vonnegut book I read, I love it.

"It was the belief of Bokonon that good societies could be built only by pitting good against evil, and by keeping the tension between the two high at all times."

I think the show idea would be cool but I don't think I'm the person for it. I argue with people all day and it gets me no where but more arguments. lol I think if you found a whale that would want to have a argument about something on the block chain that it would get a lot of attention and upvotes. Don't think 2 minnows would get that much attention.

Im half asleep right now so im sure im missing a lot of stuff you asked about. I Like the idea though, would be fun to watch a war of the worlds situation happen on steemit. lol

The main thing I took from cats cradle is man needs a god and that if god does not exist then man must create him. Also how much hope is needed.

an honest answer, i appreciate that. thank you. cheers.

8D

Wish was more help but im not. lol

i don't know if i could be convincing at it anyway. i think i need actual honesty to be convincing.

im sure you could if you tried.
xD

So you mean just stay quiet right? LOL good post.

Hell no, I mean destroy their argument by pointing out how they are trying to use a fallacy. lol

If I knew how to be quiet I wouldn't still be getting flagged by the whale flaggots. 8D

Thanks for the comment and glad you enjoyed it.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.16
JST 0.030
BTC 62852.17
ETH 2463.87
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.64