Do you take care not to use logical fallacies in discussion/debate?
Are you quick to call them out when others use them?
Since the use of logical fallacies equates to a failed argument, what should a person do once they understand their argument is fallacious?
If one struggles to reason well, what steps can be taken to change that?
You lost me at commandments.
@AMGT Never doubted your effort. And Thank You for Your Post. But when I am going to look like my enemy including using same "gadgets and tools"... am I any different than my enemy? ...am I validating my enemy? ...imitation is a common form of flattering. And still your post is very valid. I just grew up breaking commandments on a daily basis.
I do not debate the existence of non-existence. ...I give no inch to insane believers claims. ...I consider it abuse to harass the delusional mentally ill believers away from belief. ...I and my daughters won classical debate contests over non-leading questions. ... I would never take the affirmative for magic nor the negative
I must confess I am not a hundred percent sure the intended meaning of #7. But it, as well as #1 hint at one I have seen before but seems to be missing from this list. That is, appeal to authority over the merits of one's argument. Maybe that is covered by one of those, but I was looking for that word "authority."
An example of this that still sticks with me was a disagreement years ago with my then-wife. (Warning: I'm about to rant.)
We were chatting about some current event, and she started referring to a university faculty member's actions as being sexual harassment. I questioned that particular interpretation, saying the case in question was clearly sexual misconduct but did not rise to the level of harassment, at least not based on the public information available. She then insisted they were the same thing and pulled the ol' --"I'm the sociologist here; I know what I'm talking about" --card. She was close to finishing her PhD at the time. I had a bachelor in sociology, a masters in social work, and umpteen years clinical experience, including in psychotherapy, with yearly continuing ed requirements and repeated ethics training. I knew for a fact that sexual harassment is a subset of sexual misconduct, but the latter is not always the former. Nevertheless, she was adament that I had no basis to question her, since she "was the social scientist" and I was chopped liver. That kind of claim of authority in place of substance of argument is a definite fallacy, and a big one.
I learned this stuff in a logic class in college. It should be a mandatory part of every high school curriculum.
Gonna have to save this gem. Number 7 is one I see a lot when it comes to disproportional knowledge on something between me and whomever I debate.
So if you master these 10...
Are you a master debater?
I much prefer to be called a cunning linguist.