Division Merely because a group as a whole has a characteristic, it often doesn't follow that individuals in the group have that characteristic. If you suppose that it does follow, when it doesn't, your reasoning contains the Fallacy of Division. Joshua's soccer team is the best in the division because it had an undefeated season and won the division title, so their goalie must be the best in the division.
And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones.
Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset.
Instead, debaters have to bring together various facts, insights, and values that others share or can be persuaded to accept, and then show that those ideas lead more or less plausibly to a conclusion. Logic is a useful tool in this process, but it is not the only tool -- after all, "plausibility" is a fairly subjective matter that does not follow strict logical rules.
Ultimately, the judge in a debate round has to decide which side's position is more plausible in light of the arguments given -- and the judge is required to pick one of those sides, even if logic alone dictates that "we do not know" is the answer to the question at hand.
Besides, let's be honest: If you think a fallacious argument can slide by and persuade the judge to vote for you, you're going to make it, right? The trick is not getting caught. So why learn logical fallacies at all?
I can think of a couple of good reasons. First, it makes you look smart. If you can not only show that the opposition has made an error in reasoning, but you can give that error a name as well in Latin! Second, and maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it.
Much of the time, a debater will respond to an argument by simply stating a counterargument showing why the original argument is not terribly significant in comparison to other concerns, or shouldn't be taken seriously, or whatever.
That kind of response is fine, except that the original argument still remains in the debate, albeit in a less persuasive form, and the opposition is free to mount a rhetorical offensive saying why it's important after all.
On the other hand, if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all. If they can't come up with a darn good reason, then the argument is actually removed from the round.
Logic as a form of rhetoric Unfortunately, the account I have just given is a bit idealized.
Not every judge will immediately recognize the importance of the logical fallacy you've pointed out in your opposition's argument. Even if a logician would immediately accept the accuracy of your point, in a debate round it's the judge that counts.
It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments.Introduction to Argument Structure of a Logical Argument. Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure.
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual attheheels.comal thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.
It presupposed assent to rigorous standards of.
Buy Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic on attheheels.com FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders. 1 1 Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Logic and Logical Fallacies Lecture II 2 Truth Tables and Logical Operators zFace it some things are either true or false (specifying this formally is called “propositional calculus”) zA “proposition” is a meaningful statement zLimited number of operators: not, and, or, if then, if and only if zTruth tables chart .
This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones.
Debate is, fortunately or. Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking [D.Q. McInerny] on attheheels.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. An essential tool for our post-truth world: a witty primer on logic—and the dangers of illogical thinking—by a renowned Notre Dame professor Logic is synonymous with reason.