Posted on 08/25/2014 1:49:43 PM PDT by beaversmom
No Ad Homienem or Straw Man arguments?
This place wouldn’t be FR without them.
And anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. As all replies by me prove it so.
Holy cow, that was good.
#6 false dichotomy.
Obama is either an idiot or he is trying to destroy America.
Obama is either a moron or a liar.
I don’t think he is either idiot or moron.
What do I win?
I think he’s trying to destroy America and a liar. Do I win anything or am I the one supposed to be handing out the prizes?
As an old college debater I can say that the real challenge is to figure out how to do all these things without getting caught at it ;-)
The quote you posted reminded me of another quote.
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"
What becomes important are the logical fallacies. These are positions presented as logic but is illogical.
The examples are many and here are but a few.
This is encountered more than others.
Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true.
Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. Lack of proof is not proof.
bkmk
Nor is further debate needed.
The issue has been settled.
AGW alarmist argumentation.
1. Ad hominem - You’re just saying that because Big Oil is paying you off. Also, you’re worse than Hitler.
2. Straw man - You don’t believe that climate changes, but there is abundant evidence of climate change over thousands of years. Ever hear of the Ice Age? Obviously, you’re stupid.
3. Hasty generalization - CO2 is a greenhouse gas with radiative forcing potential. Therefore increases in CO2 levels will cause catastrophic global warming. It’s obvious and you’re stupid.
4. Begging the question - CO2 is pollution. Therefore EPA has authority to control it. That’s why the EPA was created.
5. Post Hoc - Both CO2 levels and global temperatures rose from 1975 to 1997. Therefore CO2 was cause of significant global temperature increases. It’s settled science.
6. False dichotomy - The government must tax CO2 emissions or it’s the end of the world. Don’t you care about your children and grandchildren?
7. Ad ignorantum - Global warming alarmists are too arrogant to admit any ignorance.
8. Burden of proof reversal = Precautionary principle. Now is the time for action; the time for debate is over.
9. Non sequitur - Any of numerous claims of harm already caused by AGW (see numberwatch.com.uk for hundreds of examples.)
10 Bandwagon fallacy - 97% !!!!!
All but #7 as far as I can tell. See above.
That’ll rile up the geezers!
Very Good!
Hitler used to do the same thing
+1
This is precisely the point at which their "debate" becomes a "campaign."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.