Know what an argumentative fallacy is and if you use one in your debates

Often, many of us use the argumentative fallacy in debates without realizing it. We make this error in our logical exposition without being able to identify it and, in many cases, without others being able to do so either. Many of these errors are considered fallacies.

A fallacy can occur in the classroom, in formal televised debates, and perhaps more rampantly in many Internet forums. But what is a fallacy? Whether you are at university, preparing an online debate or simply having a conversation, it is worth knowing the most common argumentative fallacies.

This article exposes some of the most common fallacies you may hear and that you can take into account in your own speech and debate. Knowing them will not only help you argue better, but will also allow you to often dismantle the speech of people who hold other positions.

What is a fallacy?

Fallacies are arguments that violate some logical rule.. It is a type of error in an argument that resembles good reasoning, but which we should not find convincing. False arguments are not supposed to be persuasive, but all too often they are.

Knowing how to detect and identify fallacies is an invaluable skill. It can save you time, money and personal dignity. This article exposes some of the most common fallacies you may encounter and that you should keep in mind in your own speech and debate.

“Ad hominem” fallacy

When people think of “discussions” they may go to a prototype in which shouting filled with personal attacks rules. Ironically, personal attacks fly in the face of rational arguments.

In logic and rhetoric, a personal attack is called ad hominem . ad hominem In Latin it means ‘against man’. Instead of promoting good sound reasoning, an ad hominem fallacy replaces logical argumentation with attacking language unrelated to the truth of the matter.

More specifically, The ad hominem fallacy is a relevance fallacy in which someone rejects or criticizes another person’s point of view on the basis of personal characteristics.background, physical appearance or other characteristics irrelevant to the argument at hand.

straw man fallacy

The straw man fallacy is named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. He is called a “straw man” or “scarecrow.” alluding to the falsity of the new argument that at first glance seems true, but upon careful analysis it is not, in the same way that a scarecrow looks real from afar, but not when we get close enough.

In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position that the opponent does not actually hold.. Instead of dealing with the actual argument, you attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw that the opponent never intended to defend. Through the straw man fallacy, the opponent’s arguments are replaced by other absurdities.

The straw man fallacy presents a typical scheme:

-A person presents argument “A”.
-His opponent distorts it and replaces it with argument “B”. This is similar, but wrong.
-The second person refutes argument “B”.
-Because you have equated the two arguments, it appears that “A” has also been refuted.

The Fallacy of the False Dilemma

This fallacy has a few other names: “black and white fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” or “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails to limit the options to two when there are more options to choose from.

The false dilemma fallacy is often a manipulation tool designed to polarize the audience, heroizing one side and demonizing the other.

However, it is not a fallacy if there are really only two options. For example, “Led Zeppelin is the best band of all time or it isn’t“. That is a real dilemma, since there are really only two options: A or not A. However, it would be a fallacy to say: “There are only two types of people in the world: those who love Led Zeppelin and those who hate music“.

Fallacy of the circular argument or begging the question (petitio principii)

When a person’s argument simply consists of repeating what he already assumed beforehand, he reaches no new conclusion. We call this circular argument or circular reasoning.

If someone says, “The Bible is true; That’s what the Bible says,” that’s a circular argument. They assume that the Bible only tells the truth, so they trust that it will report truthfully. It is a statement that uses its own conclusion as a premise, and vice versa, in the form of “If A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.”

This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous argument where, in reality, assumptions are simply restated in a way that makes them sound like an argument. You can recognize a circular argument when the conclusion also appears as one of the premises in the argument.

Fallacy of the red herring or red herring (ignoratio elenchi)

The “false herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument, typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant, but is not really related to the topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to divert it to something else, something easier or safer to address. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts.

For example: “The expression “red herring” refers to a smoked herring (salted herring) that was reddish brown and quite spicy. According to legend, this scent was so strong and delicious to dogs that it served as a good training device to test how well a hunting dog could track a scent without being distracted. “Dogs are not generally used to hunt fish, so a false trail is a distraction from what you are supposed to be hunting.”

“tu quoque” fallacy

The “tu quoque” or “you too” is also called “appeal to hypocrisy” because distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic does not solve the problem or prove any argument, because even hypocrites can tell the truth.

Focusing on the other person’s hypocrisy is a distraction tactic. In this way, using the fallacy your quoque You typically deflect criticism away from yourself by accusing someone else of the same or comparable problem.

If Ana says: “Maybe I have to drink less, but you smoke, Juan!” Ana is trying to diminish her responsibility or defend her actions by distributing the blame to other people. But no one else’s fault excuses your own. No matter who else is guilty, Ana continues to consume too much alcohol.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Sometimes we become so dedicated to a project that we are reluctant to abandon it, even when it turns out to be fruitless and useless. It is natural to want to continue with something that we consider important, especially because of all the resources we have invested in it.

However, this type of argument becomes a fallacy when We begin to say that we should continue with a task or project because of everything we have invested in it, without taking into account future costs. which we are likely to continue having without any results. There may be a sense of accomplishment upon completion and the project may have other values, but it is not enough to justify the investment.

Therefore, the “sunk cost” fallacy refers to the economic justification for past expenses that can no longer be recovered and that have not had satisfactory results, using the excuse that they are part of a larger project.

The fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

This fallacy occurs when we misuse the summons to an authority. It’s hard to watch sometimes because it’s usually a good and responsible move to subpoena the relevant authorities. However, we can cite authorities, conveniently distancing ourselves from other verifiable and concrete evidence, as if an expert’s opinion was always correct.

The bandwagon fallacy

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right or good) because other people agree with it. A couple of different fallacies can be included under this label, as they are often indistinguishable in practice.

The ad populum fallacy (lat., “For the populous / popularity”) is when something is accepted because it is popular. He concensus gentium (lat., “Consensus of the people”) is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or all people agree on it.

We hope that this article on some argumentative fallacies will help you navigate future disputes with unhinged friends, family, and acquaintances without falling into childish insults. Knowing what these fallacies consist of puts you in a better position to rhetorically defeat your opponent. with solid reasoning and airtight logic.

You might be interested…