Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Lesson #2: Logical Fallicies
mr e

Date:
Lesson #2: Logical Fallicies


Visit the following site: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html, read the information provided on the different types of logical fallicies and then answer the following questions.

1) Which five types of logical fallacies do you believe apprear in debate most often?  Provide two examples for each.

2) How do you believe these logical fallacies can improve your cross examination strategies when addressing the issues of increasing public health assistance in sub-Saharan Africa?  Provide five examples.

__________________
Andrew

Date:

1) Which five types of logical fallacies do you believe apprear in debate most often? Provide two examples for each.

Argumentum ad hominem - Kyle and I have been called out on this many times, due to our fashion sense, no less. With me, moreso have I been targeted because of my aggressive and over assertive style.

Argumentum ad logicam - This was often what we used to logically overpower other teams. Most affirmatives picked definitions and quotes that had two sides. I was also called on this when I half made up a quote that was proven false.

Argumentum ad nauseam - The word "substantially" comes into play with this fallacy. We argued it the whole year, twice or more each debate.

Argumentum ad populum - We had one team really try to use this, but failed miserably. The affirmative tried to refer to a quote we used as common knowledge.

Red Herring - This is by far the most fun I've had debating. Some people will throw things into arguments for nothing. Speaking on a military plan, the affirmative tried to apply a stance of debt coverage decreasing poverty.

2) How do you believe these logical fallacies can improve your cross examination strategies when addressing the issues of increasing public health assistance in sub-Saharan Africa? Provide five examples.

Red Herring will be easy to use, just because of its flexibility in subjects. I could raise argument that putting money in Africa could increase crime rates.

I could use a sweeping generalization, such as Africa is judicially unsafe, therefore, money would be completely wasted.

For Argumentum da Nausea, we could just regurgitate the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa is like a sink without a plug. Money would just keep pouring out.

On the general side of things, a straw man argument is always helpful. We could take the funding for a plan, and just rip it to shreds.

I suppose we could
Argumentum ad ignorantiam on the fact that helping only certain parts of Africa would be racist.






__________________
mre

Date:

Andrew wrote:

1) Which five types of logical fallacies do you believe apprear in debate most often? Provide two examples for each.

Argumentum ad hominem - Kyle and I have been called out on this many times, due to our fashion sense, no less. With me, moreso have I been targeted because of my aggressive and over assertive style.

Argumentum ad logicam - This was often what we used to logically overpower other teams. Most affirmatives picked definitions and quotes that had two sides. I was also called on this when I half made up a quote that was proven false.

Argumentum ad nauseam - The word "substantially" comes into play with this fallacy. We argued it the whole year, twice or more each debate.

Argumentum ad populum - We had one team really try to use this, but failed miserably. The affirmative tried to refer to a quote we used as common knowledge.

Red Herring - This is by far the most fun I've had debating. Some people will throw things into arguments for nothing. Speaking on a military plan, the affirmative tried to apply a stance of debt coverage decreasing poverty.

2) How do you believe these logical fallacies can improve your cross examination strategies when addressing the issues of increasing public health assistance in sub-Saharan Africa? Provide five examples.

Red Herring will be easy to use, just because of its flexibility in subjects. I could raise argument that putting money in Africa could increase crime rates.

I could use a sweeping generalization, such as Africa is judicially unsafe, therefore, money would be completely wasted.

For Argumentum da Nausea, we could just regurgitate the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa is like a sink without a plug. Money would just keep pouring out.

On the general side of things, a straw man argument is always helpful. We could take the funding for a plan, and just rip it to shreds.

I suppose we could
Argumentum ad ignorantiam on the fact that helping only certain parts of Africa would be racist.






Andrew,

Explain each fallacy that you provide examples for and then explain your examples with a bit more detail, ok?  Thanks!biggrin  We want others to be able to learn from your work and experience. 

mr e



__________________
nicole

Date:

Complex question-Although it is rare this has happened to me during a debate. The Affirmative team made the assumption that Heather and I meant something other than what we have said and they tried to use it against us.

The Affirmative team likes to put words in your mouth to benefit themselves. If you are not completely clear with what you are saying they will take it to their advantage and insist thats what you meant.

This also works the other way around. If the Negative team doesn't quite understand what the Affirmative team is saying you can assume something that will benefit you.

Argumentum ad nauseam-Being a Negative you need repetition. With repetition and repeating things multiple times you have a greater chance of getting a point across.

Heather was excellent at this. In her constructive she would go through everything once, but at the end of the constructive she would go through it again but more in depth.

Argumentum ad numerum-This is something the Affirmative tries to do to prove that a large amount of people agree with what their for. Such as 70% of the people we surveyed likes to read. Well if they only surveyed 10 people then this survey would be as accurate as it could be.


Red herring-This happens many times, almost every debate. The Affirmative team uses irrelevant facts to make the problem sound worse than it is.

Luckily Heather and I noticed this was happening and was able to stop this most of the time. Letting the Affirmative team use facts that don't matter will only benefit them and will make your job as a Negative harder.

Argumentum ad misericordiam-This is something the Affirmative uses to make people feel like something should be done about the problem. Almost making the others in the room feel guilty nothing is happening to solve the problem. These problems are so big, with any amount of help nothing will change so it would be pointless to try.

Knowing these arguments can help you in a debate because it can help you realize what is going on in the debate and how to attack it. The Affirmative team is tricky and will do what it takes to win a debate. Watch out when they use percentages and numbers and make sure the problem is not being exaggerated.


adsfljal;skfjadf;asf i tried to do this, but i failed..miserably.hmm

__________________
mre

Date:

test reply

__________________
Nicole Lacerda

Date:

I'm still having a hard time with coming up with examples. I don't think like an Affirmative..

__________________
katie bentley

Date:

Logical Fallicies can be helpful in cross x because they can assist you and provide you with an image of higher intelligance. Logical fallicies can help you identify an error in your opponents plan and adress it. They can also help you show that the said plan isnt worth the time in a day becuase it wont work at all. For example if an aff. was to say that more money is needed to support AIDS patints in sub saharan africa i could find the fault in there plan by using the logical fallicy  Argumentum ad hominem and say, well that is not necissary because we have already been sending billions of dollars to support HIV/AIDS releif.

__________________
Roger hart

Date:
RE: Lesson #2: Logical Fallicies #2




            Everyone should use logical fallacies to improve there cross examination strategies. Well for one it makes your opponent look small and not as intelligent as you, which is always fun. Also to point out what they made an error in, what could be more pleasing making your opponents feel like they are helpless. I mean if you could appeal and show that the opposing plan has no value to support the support the claim then why say it at all, waste of your energy and mine and if your persuasive you might just be able to make you opponent believe that there plan is pointless and is a waste of daylight. I mean I think the most useful fallacy is
Argumentum ad populum; argument or appeal to the public. Because if youre an affirmative you can always be like (and use Argumentum ad populum) and be like would you want to tell those children that there parents are dead, and I would use Argumentum ad misericordiam and say that people die every day and how are we supposed to save them all, so were just going to save the ones who you want to save, the ones you say you fell for.

__________________
Lisa

Date:
RE: Lesson #2: Logical Fallicies


Subtle use of these logical fallacies would be beneficial during cross examination by an affirmative team.  The logical fallacies listed on the website seem appropriate when either a stronger argument is not available, or the line between fallacy and legitimate logic is a fine one.  For example, for this years resolution, Argumentum ad misericordiam, argument or appeal to pity, would probably transfer easily to cross examination.  Obviously, it would not be fallacy to explain that Africans suffer, but an affirmative team could use this to their advantage by compensating for problems in the plan by giving the impression that the duress of Africans justifies it.  Straw Man would probably also be useful, such as implying that a negative team denying need has no sympathy for the problems of Africans.  Red Herring seems like it could be applied to almost anything, and it seems like a tactic the affirmative team should be watchful for.  Argumentum ad populam, argument or appeal to the public, could probably be used in conjunction with Argumentum ad misericordiam to win the sympathy of a judge.  In the context of sub-Saharan Africa, Argumentum ad nauseam could be used to reiterate the pain of the people and need for assistance.

__________________
moussa

Date:


I. Nature, appeal to. When a debater proposes that what ever is unnatural or opposing nature is wrong. (1) This is a common argument for debaters who are against homosexuality. They say that it is not natural, therefore it is wrong. When just because something is unnatural doesnt necessarily mean its wrong. (2) Also environmentalists like argue that global warming is not part of the natural heating and cooling cycle of the earth. Again just because it is not natural doesnt mean its bad. (I make this point even though I do believe in global warming and that nations should take actions to stop it).

Tu quoque. This is when a debater or their team accuses the other team or accusing them off an error when the accusers have committed the same crime. This usually occurs many times in the international community. (1) For example just yesterday the president of the United States accused Iran or off wanting to develop nuclear weapons. The Nicaraguan president (Irans ally) accused the United States of criticizing Iran when it is the only country in the world to use the nuclear bomb. (2)This argument was also taken by President Bush when he didnt want to sign the Kyoto Protocol even though many countries wanted the U.S. to ratify it. The president said that he wouldnt sign it until there was a commitment by India and China that they would try to decrease their Carbon Foot Print in the world.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is basically when a debater generalizes on a subject. (1) One example when a debater might say that all Africans are poor when it is clearly a generalization of the fact that there are many poor Africans. (2) It is also used when a debater says that We can not provide medicine to sub-Saharan Africa because its has dense rainforests this is clearly a generalization of a couple of sub-Saharan African countries onto the whole region.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is when a debater will accuse the person of something instead of attacking the actual idea itself. (1) This has occurred when a certain president of a country (I can not remember who) said that the United States accusations of Irans intentions couldnt be trusted because their intelligence about Iraqs nuclear capabilities were wrong. This is the perfect example of Argumentum and Hominem. (2) This is also used when for example the U.S. or some other country might say that whatever a terrorist group says is wrong simply because they have a bad history. But what they dont think about is the fact that sometimes a terrorist group might say the truth so support their cause or to gain support from the international community.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is when a debater says that something is true based on the fact that it hasnt been proven false. (1) This can be used when it comes to debating the gay gene. One debater might say that the gay gene does exist simply because no one has completely understood what all our genes do. (2) srry Mr. Everett but I can not think of any other example for this one!

II. All these logical fallacies can help me greatly in debate when it comes to recognizing when a debater might be trying to get a fellow debater into a corner. By indentifying these fallacies i will be able to make a better point and at the same time hurt the other team. i can not give u any examples because i have never participated in a live debate. i hope to some day.

__________________
Heather

Date:

PART ONE
1.Argumentum ad nauseam- in debate i think this fallacy comes in handy a lot. Its something that gets your point across clearly. It has aways helped me that if hear something more than once then it will stick in my head and i will remember it easier.
Last year durring debates i would use this tactic a lot it seemed to help me when i was tring to convince the judge.
2.Red herring- this comes in handy durring Cross-Ex because you can get the other team off topic and its easier for them to lose time and not get there points across
Nicole and I were very good at this durring debates last year. We managed to get the Aff. team off topic for at least half of there time being questioned.
3.Straw man- I only did this once last year.
it was a plan about taking men form the prisons and putting them in the military and i twisted their words around to make it seem like they were really being racist and segrating against people who are in prison and they shouldnt be treated like everyone else who is putting their lives on the line fighting for our country.
4.Argumentum ad ignorantiam -as a neg this can really work to your advantage because when you are a neg you a mostly reading quotes and things that make sence to what is currently happening in the debate to put down the Aff team when using this fallacy you can qoute things and there is no way to prove wat you are sayin is wrong
5.Argumentum ad numerum -This fallacy is always good, it helps with numbers and knowing percents of people who take servays to help your cause

PART TWO

I think that these fallacies can help this years topic by:

repitition always come in to help a neg, he can be used to prove that there is aready enough services being sent to africa to help. It can also help with saying that the leaders are corrupt. It will help convince the judge that we as neg have better points

Red Harding will come in handy this year because there are so many other issues goin on in affrica right now it will be easy to get the other team off topic

straw man.. hmm im not sure how it can be applied i would have to listen to a plan i guess but it might be easy to twist someones words around in a cross Ex and make the other team look bad or even better contridict themselves.

When you dont have any way to prove yourself wrong it will help you this year because then you automatically have something on the other team

the survay fallacy will help this year. There are so many different numbers goin around and there are also a lot of numbers stating how many people are actually being helped my the present systems that are already giving aid to africa

__________________
Blaine

Date:

Part one

Red herring is commonly used to during cross-x. It is used to distract the person asking questions and to divert the subject under question.
Argumentum ad misericordiam an argument based on pity of a situation. Like taking pity on the poor, starving, helpless Africans. It would be hard for anyone to deny that they would not want to help people desperately in need.
Dicto simpliciter, the generalization of a topic and displaying it as a fact. Showing that it applies to the main topic entirely.
Complex question a question that is set up to control the answer to a question, hurting the opponent.
Argumentum ad hominem this is attacking the person stating the idea. Not attacking the actual idea. This is common because some times people dont have credibility.

Part two
I would be able to use my knowledge of these fallacies to prevent them being used against me. I would also be able to use these fallacies to help me against my opponent

__________________
Greg

Date:

Argumentum Ad Hominem - I can only assume what it's like in the midst of a debate at this point, but I'd wager that less-experienced, careless debaters who aren't focusing enough would, perhaps unintentionally, accidentally make an indirect personal attack or two.
"My opponents don't seem to know what they're talking about."
"My opponent stumbled over his argument while reading it word-for-word from a sheet in front of him.  He's clearly not committed to this debate and the people of Africa."

Knowing about this fallacy can provide prevention of you committing it in any argument. You can ask your opponent why they had to personally attack you to prove their point, not to mention remain cool when somebody says something vitriolic about you.

Argumentum ad misericordiam- 
Especially in issues like public health, people want others to believe that they can be saviors to the people they are trying to give aid to.  As like argument ad hominem, this may be inadvertent, but it draws attention away from the real point of the debate.
"Won't somebody PLEASE think about the children?"
"Is money worth more than the lives of those poor, starving Chechen refugees?"

Knowledge is prevention.  This fallacy is not always a fallacy, just when it's too much of a part of your argument than other, important facts are.  Knowing where line lies and when your opponents cross it can save your negative from certain doom from when an opponent tries to guilt the people in the audience into thinking that your position is downright heartless, cruel, and apathetic.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc:  People tend to think that because two things happen at the same time,  they're related.  People making false assumptions about things being caused by each other rather than just happening at the same time can be hard to stop without pointing out that fact.

"The climate has warmed up greatly since the number of pirates started dropping in the nineteenth century.  Therefore, global warming exists and is inversely proportional to the number of pirates."
"The stock market started going up as the president started wearing red ties more often than blue ties.  Coincidence?  I think not."

This fallacy will probably be especially common when affirmatives talk about sending financial aid to Africa.  They'll cite a spike in consumption of coca-cola or something of that nature and slap it next to the fact that it was around then that the UN gave the country money, then not go deeper as to why, but instead imply that they are directly related without giving any reason to believe so.

Slippery Slope:  If we do this, then there's no way we won't do this, and this, and this... and so on.  Inexperienced debaters probably pull this all the time.  The thing keeping it fallacious is that it isn't stated HOW the events will cause each other.
"If we take 'in God we Trust' off the currency or "under God" out of the Pledge, next thing you know it'll be illegal to say 'God' in public, then it'll be illegal to have a Bible, then they'll outlaw religion!"
"If you let a student show up two minutes late to class because they come from far away in the school, then they'll start showing up two minutes late for their two minutes, then ten minutes, then they won't even come to your class until it's halfway over."

BIG potential for the fallacious version being used here.  Debaters who just assume that things will cause each other without thinking about why will probably bring this one out on things like "if we give money to the government, then they'll need more and more money over a period of time and eventually, we're paying half our foreign budget to them!"

Argumentum ad verecundiam:  In lot of issues, people who have no idea what they're talking about but media ties can influence the opinions of many, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone in a debate formed their argument based mainly on something an unqualified-in-that-field figure said.
"I don't like the war in Iraq because, I mean, look at all the bands and actors who came out against the war!"
"Bill O'Reilly said that the economy is doing great, and even though he doesn't have a degree in economics, I agree because he told me it is."

This particular fallacy will take shape when/if people quote actors or musicians on issues that they have never really studied very hard and aren't in their field of expertise.  If the words "Live Aid" come up, you can pretty much rest assured that this fallacy probably isn't far behind.


__________________
Leah Machado

Date:

OH MY GOD! mr. e!! so is the real assignment?  do you want us all to really read like 10 pages of debate things?  cause uhh i have no idea what any of that even means or even how to answer the question.  was there even a question?  my brain is complete mush now.....



__________________
Shyla

Date:

Logical fallaciescan improve your cross examination strategies when debating because it helps to identify the opposed teams bad piece of reasoning. In my situation of being an affirmative I believe that the following fallacies would be beneficial to my argument:

Argumentum ad hominem- I feel that this is a legit fallacy because it applies to the most common conflicts that arise in debates which is how to attack the opposed sides question and the motives they have. The negative team is most likely to implying how change has been made and how is what we do going to change.Argumentum ad numerum - Most percentages and or statistics appeal to many people because it is logic to think that majority rules. Such as Africa is the leading death rate of HIV/AIDS by 90% (not accurate, just an example)Argumentum ad misericordiam- This has to be the best one because Africa is third world country where a vast majority of people feel sympathy for due to its circumstances. This may appeal more to adults or judges because their state of mind is more mature than teenagers.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam- I personally like this one because a lot of times things are said out of iggnorance. Of course, in this society people can be very blunt and discrete about the way say things and so I believe that ignorance may play a role on attacking the opposing team with the arguments they have, yet provided with evidence as well.

Red Herring- applies to many things because it is so relevant in debates. It is more of an already told fallacy that the affirmative team should be cautious about. People are always trying to distract away from the question.

__________________
Jennifer Costa

Date:

Five logical fallicies that I believe appear most in debate are:
nature, appeal to- When debators argue that just because something isn't natural it is wrong.
slippery slope- When a debator argues that one event will eventually lead to another series of other events.
red herring- When a debator argues about an issue that is irrevelant to the current debate.
dicto simpliciter- When a debator states the generalized statement on a subject.
complex question- When a debator is cross examining his opponent with a complex question in order to "corner" his opponent



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Date:

I think it will help in identifying the opposite teams. Logical fallacies can progress your cross inspection strategies when discussion. Dissertation Help UK Service



__________________

Dissertation Writing Services

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard