Fallacies
Fallacy #1. False Cause
Posted on March 4, 2014.
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Do_violent_video_games_cause_violence
Do violent video games cause violence?
Posted on March 4, 2014.
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Do_violent_video_games_cause_violence
Do violent video games cause violence?
FLYINGTOMATO said,
"Violent video games do not
cause youth violence, in fact it decreases youth violence because......Violent
juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game
popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%
between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has
declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than
quadrupled."
This example is a false cause fallacy because in the false cause, the arguer illegitimately assumes that because event X preceded event Y, that X caused Y. In this example, the arguer is indicating that the decrease in youth violence is caused by the increase in violent video game popularity. However, this argument is far too simple and it does not consider other factors such as increased availability of mental illness services to the youth.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. The arguer assumes that the decree in juvenile crime in the U.S. is caused by the increased popularity in violent video games. His assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "There is a correlation between the decrease in juvenile violence and the increase in popularity of violent video games amongst juveniles."
This example is a false cause fallacy because in the false cause, the arguer illegitimately assumes that because event X preceded event Y, that X caused Y. In this example, the arguer is indicating that the decrease in youth violence is caused by the increase in violent video game popularity. However, this argument is far too simple and it does not consider other factors such as increased availability of mental illness services to the youth.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. The arguer assumes that the decree in juvenile crime in the U.S. is caused by the increased popularity in violent video games. His assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "There is a correlation between the decrease in juvenile violence and the increase in popularity of violent video games amongst juveniles."
Fallacy
#2. Slippery Slope
Posted on March 11, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/the-porn-industry/t.90900209_1/
The Porn Industry
GreenDisease said,
"It argues that the more you see something, and the more familiar you are with it, the more bored you become. It’s the idea behind “gate-way drugs”, except that in this case, you start out with “adult” porn, eventually progress to “BARELY LEGAL TEENS SPRING BREAK!!1!1!!1!1 awwww yeah”, and from there, its apparently just a small hop, skip and ass over tea-kettle tumble into the land of “felony child predation” and bunking with Bubba
Posted on March 11, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/the-porn-industry/t.90900209_1/
The Porn Industry
GreenDisease said,
"It argues that the more you see something, and the more familiar you are with it, the more bored you become. It’s the idea behind “gate-way drugs”, except that in this case, you start out with “adult” porn, eventually progress to “BARELY LEGAL TEENS SPRING BREAK!!1!1!!1!1 awwww yeah”, and from there, its apparently just a small hop, skip and ass over tea-kettle tumble into the land of “felony child predation” and bunking with Bubba
This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, a variation of the false cause fallacy. It occurred on 3-11-14.
This example is a slippery slope because in the slippery slope fallacy the arguer assumes that a domino effect will occur but there is not enough evidence that one or more events in the domino effect will cause the others. In this example, GreenDisease is assuming that by watching regular adult porn, you will eventually end up watching barely legal, then child pornography, and then in jail. However, a person could watch regular adult porn and be repulsed by child pornography. Additionally, there are those who view regular adult porn in hopes of"spicing" up their own relationships. So, viewing adult porn does not mean you will end up in prison.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. GreenDisease assumes that watching adult porn eventually leads to watching child pornography and jail-time. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could instead have stated, "Child pornography may cause a process of desensitization within the viewer."
Fallacy #3. Slippery Slope
Posted on January 29, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.ernya.com/vanishing-of-the-bees-t272971.html
Vanishing of the Bees
{Ember} said,
"Getting back to the topic...bees pollinate flowers, thus allowing their seeds to create new flowers. Without bees, vegetation will cease to reproduce and possibly throw the globe into a famine since the herbivores will have less to eat and die off from starvation eventually. And without the meat from animals we would down the road die off."
This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, a variation of the false cause fallacy. It occurred on 1-29-14.
This example is a slippery slope because in the slippery slope fallacy the arguer assumes that a chain reaction will occur but there is not enough evidence that one or more events in the chain will cause the others. In this example, {Ember} is assuming that if bees go missing, then plants would completely stop reproducing, which would kill off herbivores, and eventually us due to the lack of meat from the herbivores. There are other animals such as hummingbirds and butterflies that help with pollination, intentionally or not. Obviously, all vegetation will not cease to reproduce if bees disappear.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. {Ember} assumes that if there are no bees then vegetation would cease to reproduce. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could instead have hedged her statement, "Without bees, vegetation may be severely hindered."
Posted on January 29, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.ernya.com/vanishing-of-the-bees-t272971.html
Vanishing of the Bees
{Ember} said,
"Getting back to the topic...bees pollinate flowers, thus allowing their seeds to create new flowers. Without bees, vegetation will cease to reproduce and possibly throw the globe into a famine since the herbivores will have less to eat and die off from starvation eventually. And without the meat from animals we would down the road die off."
This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, a variation of the false cause fallacy. It occurred on 1-29-14.
This example is a slippery slope because in the slippery slope fallacy the arguer assumes that a chain reaction will occur but there is not enough evidence that one or more events in the chain will cause the others. In this example, {Ember} is assuming that if bees go missing, then plants would completely stop reproducing, which would kill off herbivores, and eventually us due to the lack of meat from the herbivores. There are other animals such as hummingbirds and butterflies that help with pollination, intentionally or not. Obviously, all vegetation will not cease to reproduce if bees disappear.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. {Ember} assumes that if there are no bees then vegetation would cease to reproduce. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could instead have hedged her statement, "Without bees, vegetation may be severely hindered."
Fallacy #4. False Dilemma
Posted on March 18, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/I_m_so_upset_right_now
Intangible said,
"But if we don't have war, then how will we sleep safely and soundly at night?
Posted on March 18, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/I_m_so_upset_right_now
Intangible said,
"But if we don't have war, then how will we sleep safely and soundly at night?
We must kill the terrorist before
they kill us.
Besides...war is good for maintaining the natural order. If we stop having wars for too long, then the unvierses megamolagimic spectrum will diversify and everything as you know it will be torn asunder."
This is an example of the false dilemma fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a false dilemma fallacy because in the false dilemma, the arguer gives you only a few choices to choose from while in reality there could be more. In this example, the arguer is indicating that we either kill them or we could stop and let them kill us. However, there are other options such as resolving a peace treaty or agreement.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. The arguer assumes that the only answer is violence. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Sometimes violence is necessary when peaceful solutions are not possible."
Besides...war is good for maintaining the natural order. If we stop having wars for too long, then the unvierses megamolagimic spectrum will diversify and everything as you know it will be torn asunder."
This is an example of the false dilemma fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a false dilemma fallacy because in the false dilemma, the arguer gives you only a few choices to choose from while in reality there could be more. In this example, the arguer is indicating that we either kill them or we could stop and let them kill us. However, there are other options such as resolving a peace treaty or agreement.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. The arguer assumes that the only answer is violence. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Sometimes violence is necessary when peaceful solutions are not possible."
Fallacy #5. Abusive argument against the Person
Posted on March 16, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_gays_just_change_the_word_marriage
SAXON said,
Posted on March 16, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_gays_just_change_the_word_marriage
SAXON said,
"Absolutely not. Gays should
not be allowed to change the culture of straights. Gays are an abomination to
humanity, and should be viewed and treated as such. Marriage has been clearly defined as a union between a male and a
female for thousands of years. We should change such a definition simply
to keep the liberals happy? The act of faggotry/dyketry is disgusting, and
should be removed from our society. Fags/Dykes should be kept as far away from
marriage as is possible. If they wish to be together with members of their same
sex, do so in the privacy of your own homes."
This is an example of the argument against the person or abusive ad hominem fallacy. It occurred on 3-16-14.
This example is a abusive ad hominem fallacy because in the ad hominem fallacy, the arguer attempts to discredit an argument or view by launching a direct personal attack. In this example, the arguer is attacking members of the LGBT. However, the personal attack does not support his argument which is against the redefinition of the word marriage.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance. The arguer's personal attacks seem psychologically relevant; however, they are are logically irrelevant to the arguer's conclusion. Therefore, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have used more neutral language or avoided personal attacks all together. The arguer could rewrite it like this: "The LGBT community should not have the authority to redefine the term marriage because its meaning has been consistent for a lengthy amount of time."
Fallacy #6. Appeal to the People
Posted on March 18, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Christians_Should_hermaphrodites_have_the_right_to_a_marry_someone_of_either_sex
Christians: Should hermaphrodites have the right to a marry someone of either sex?
Intangible said,
"They are abominatural.
A real Christian would say no.
It was Adam and Eve, not Evam and Adeve ."
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Christians_Should_hermaphrodites_have_the_right_to_a_marry_someone_of_either_sex
Christians: Should hermaphrodites have the right to a marry someone of either sex?
Intangible said,
"They are abominatural.
A real Christian would say no.
It was Adam and Eve, not Evam and Adeve ."
This is an example of the appeal to the people fallacy or ad populum fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a ad populum fallacy because in the ad populum fallacy, the arguer attempts to persuade a person or group by appealing to the desire to be accepted or valued by others.
In this example, the arguer is trying to persuade readers to accept his view against hermaphrodites by stating that you are not a true Christian if you support the opposition's view. Clearly there are true Christians who feel strongly about everyone having equal rights, so this argument is unfair to them.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance. The arguer's premise that "A real Christian would say no" seems irrelevant to the conclusion that "hermaphrodites should not have the right to marry someone of either sex." Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have used more neutral language or avoided personal attacks all together. The arguer could rewrite it like this: "The LGBT community should not have the authority to redefine the term marriage because its meaning has been consistent for a lengthy amount of time."
Fallacy #7. Equivocation
Posted on March 2, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_women_be_allowed_to_walk_around_topless_in_public
Kazerian2001 said,
"Why is it okay for a Buff guy to walk around shirtless on a hot day. I thought this was a democratic country. If it's so democratic then we should give women more rights. If men can do it, why can't women."
This is an example of the equivocation fallacy. It occurred on 3-2-14.
This example is a equivocation fallacy because in the equivocation fallacy, the arguer uses a word with multiple meanings inconsistently in their argument. Though, it is required to have a single meaning in order to have validity. In this example, the arguer is stating that the United States is a democratic country. On the first use of the word, they arguer meant that the U.S. was a "freed" country. However, in the second usage of the word democratic, the arguer means "If [U.S.] is so equal then we should give women more rights." Thus, the argument is clearly invalid when the term democratic is substituted out with its meanings.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of ambiguity. The arguer uses multiple meanings of a word in his argument. Thus, their argument is ambiguous.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "I thought this was a equal country. If it's so equal then we should give women more rights."
Posted on March 2, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_women_be_allowed_to_walk_around_topless_in_public
Kazerian2001 said,
"Why is it okay for a Buff guy to walk around shirtless on a hot day. I thought this was a democratic country. If it's so democratic then we should give women more rights. If men can do it, why can't women."
This is an example of the equivocation fallacy. It occurred on 3-2-14.
This example is a equivocation fallacy because in the equivocation fallacy, the arguer uses a word with multiple meanings inconsistently in their argument. Though, it is required to have a single meaning in order to have validity. In this example, the arguer is stating that the United States is a democratic country. On the first use of the word, they arguer meant that the U.S. was a "freed" country. However, in the second usage of the word democratic, the arguer means "If [U.S.] is so equal then we should give women more rights." Thus, the argument is clearly invalid when the term democratic is substituted out with its meanings.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of ambiguity. The arguer uses multiple meanings of a word in his argument. Thus, their argument is ambiguous.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "I thought this was a equal country. If it's so equal then we should give women more rights."
Fallacy #8. Complex Question
Posted on March 19, 2014
Posted on March 19, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-oklahoma-execution-drugs-death-penalty-20140319,0,6621154.story#ixzz2wQnpIUaY
crewe49 said,
“If capital punishment is such a good thing why is it hidden away from public view? Televise it so that millions could watch. Surely if people could see what happens to people who murder they would be less inclined to murder people themselves.
Could the real reason that it is not put on public view be that we know capital punishment is a barbarous act that is carried out in our name but we would rather not see it because if we did we would want it stopped.”
crewe49 said,
“If capital punishment is such a good thing why is it hidden away from public view? Televise it so that millions could watch. Surely if people could see what happens to people who murder they would be less inclined to murder people themselves.
Could the real reason that it is not put on public view be that we know capital punishment is a barbarous act that is carried out in our name but we would rather not see it because if we did we would want it stopped.”
This is an example of the complex question fallacy. It occurred on 3-19-14.
This example is a complex question fallacy because in the complex question fallacy, the arguer asks a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question. In this example, the arguer is asking why capital punishment is hidden away from public view presupposing that capital punishment is good. And the arguer makes the assumption that a good thing should not be hidden from public view. However, not everything good should be known to the public. For example, defecation in regards to the human body is considered a good thing. That doesn't mean that it should be publicly viewed.
This example is a complex question fallacy because in the complex question fallacy, the arguer asks a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question. In this example, the arguer is asking why capital punishment is hidden away from public view presupposing that capital punishment is good. And the arguer makes the assumption that a good thing should not be hidden from public view. However, not everything good should be known to the public. For example, defecation in regards to the human body is considered a good thing. That doesn't mean that it should be publicly viewed.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumptions . The arguer presupposes the conclusion that capital punishment is a good thing and that good things should not be hidden from public view. Thus, their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Capital punishment is not as good as many people believe it is."
Fallacy #9. Tu Quoque
Posted on March 17, 2014
Fallacy found at
Posted on March 17, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.recorderonline.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/shame-on-burton/article_9aedecae-ae34-11e3-8121-001a4bcf6878.html
Buddy Krupa said,
Buddy Krupa said,
“Editor,
Shame on you Burton School District.
I attended the school board meeting in support of
keeping Dr. Pengilly at Burton Middle School. I saw students of BMS holding
signs and even speaking at the meeting in favor of keeping Dr. Pengilly at
their school. Imagine that, students willing to go speak in front of the board
and plead with them to keep their principal.
The room was filled with parents and others hoping
to see Dr. Pengilly stay at BMS. As an educator, this was very motivating to
see....until the Board and mostly, Dr. Kamberg spoke. Her “management team”,
made up of principals and vice-principals decided that moving Pengilly was a
good idea. Mind you, by nature, principals and vice-principals typically say
yes to their boss. Her “management team” does not include teachers, parents or
anybody else; just her “yes” people. Here is a good illustration of how the public
views Dr. Kamberg. At the meeting a lady spoke about Kamberg’s horrible people
skills and how she treated this lady like she was on fire and avoided her at
all cost. After a few other negative observations, the room exploded with
applause in support of this lady that just spoke. That is sad Burton District.
Your “leader” does not have our support...at all.
The
new principal who is going to take her place is so ashamed of Burton Middle
School, that she sent her daughter to Sequoia Middle school. So, the lady who
is going to carry on the Burton pride, doesn’t even have pride in the school.
What is your thinking process Dr. Kamberg? We, the tax payers who invest in
this district, really want to know.”
This is an example of the tu quoque fallacy. It occurred on 3-17-14.
This example is a tu quoque fallacy because in the tu quoque fallacy, the arguer tires to discredit an argument or view by suggesting that one's opponent is hypocritical. In this example, the arguer is saying that the new principle is not inclined to carry the Burton Pride since she doesn't even have pride in the school. Also, the arguer believes that the new principle is hypocritical. However, that is irrelevant to the conclusion that Burton School District should keep the previous principal, Dr. Pengilly.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance . The arguer suggests that the opposing side is hypocritical . Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Many parents and students show a stronger preference to keep the previous principal instead of switching in a new one."
This is an example of the tu quoque fallacy. It occurred on 3-17-14.
This example is a tu quoque fallacy because in the tu quoque fallacy, the arguer tires to discredit an argument or view by suggesting that one's opponent is hypocritical. In this example, the arguer is saying that the new principle is not inclined to carry the Burton Pride since she doesn't even have pride in the school. Also, the arguer believes that the new principle is hypocritical. However, that is irrelevant to the conclusion that Burton School District should keep the previous principal, Dr. Pengilly.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance . The arguer suggests that the opposing side is hypocritical . Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Many parents and students show a stronger preference to keep the previous principal instead of switching in a new one."
Fallacy #10.Argument against the Person
Posted on March 18, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373578/handing-over-keys-internet-charles-c-w-cooke
Dean57 said,
"Is the U.S gone completely crazy? Handing over the biggest part of free speech to a bunch of despots.
This is unbelievable. It is as bad as the UN handing over chairmanship of human rights activities to Libya.
Has common sense gone completely overboard by this administration.
Thank you Obama voters.
Your lack of common sense is once again on display by voting in this feckless President.
Shame on you!"
This is an example of the abusive against the person (ad hominem) fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a abusive ad hominem fallacy because in the ad hominem fallacy, the arguer attempts to discredit an argument or view by launching a direct personal attack. In this example, the arguer is attacking the voters in the United States (specifically, those whom voted for President Obama.) However, the personal attack does not support their argument which is against handing over the "keys" to the internet.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance. The arguer's personal attacks seem psychologically relevant; however, they are are logically irrelevant to the arguer's conclusion. Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have used less biased phrases or personal attacks all together. The arguer could rewrite it like this: "The United States is considering a bad decision by handing over a crucial part of free speech. There should be some awareness that this is a bad idea. President Obama has shown his incompetence and those that voted him into office are indirectly responsible for that decision."
Posted on March 18, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373578/handing-over-keys-internet-charles-c-w-cooke
Dean57 said,
"Is the U.S gone completely crazy? Handing over the biggest part of free speech to a bunch of despots.
This is unbelievable. It is as bad as the UN handing over chairmanship of human rights activities to Libya.
Has common sense gone completely overboard by this administration.
Thank you Obama voters.
Your lack of common sense is once again on display by voting in this feckless President.
Shame on you!"
This is an example of the abusive against the person (ad hominem) fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a abusive ad hominem fallacy because in the ad hominem fallacy, the arguer attempts to discredit an argument or view by launching a direct personal attack. In this example, the arguer is attacking the voters in the United States (specifically, those whom voted for President Obama.) However, the personal attack does not support their argument which is against handing over the "keys" to the internet.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance. The arguer's personal attacks seem psychologically relevant; however, they are are logically irrelevant to the arguer's conclusion. Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have used less biased phrases or personal attacks all together. The arguer could rewrite it like this: "The United States is considering a bad decision by handing over a crucial part of free speech. There should be some awareness that this is a bad idea. President Obama has shown his incompetence and those that voted him into office are indirectly responsible for that decision."
Labels: Introduction to Logic