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.

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.

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

            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.

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.

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

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.....

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

Thankyou for sharing. It is an interesting topic. You can also build a game app with the help of the best game creation companies.

Panchakarma treatment is used to rejuvenate the body and mind for better harmony of the body and mind. Amritash Ayurveda is the leading centre in Rishikesh offering ayurvedic massage treatments to get relief from stress.

-- Edited by amritashayurveda on Friday 19th of July 2019 04:52:05 PM