Know What An Argumentative Fallacy Is And If You Use One In Your Debates

Many of us often use the argumentative fallacy in debates without realizing it . We make this mistake 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 rampant in many Internet forums. But what is a fallacy? Whether you’re in college, preparing an online debate, or just having a conversation, the most frequent argumentative fallacies are worth knowing.

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

What is a fallacy?

Fallacies are reasoning that violates 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 shouldn’t be persuasive, but all too often they are.

Knowing how to spot 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 that you may encounter and that you should keep in mind in your own speech and debate.

Fallacy “ad hominem”

When people think of “arguments” they can turn to a prototype in which screams riddled with personal attacks rule. Ironically, personal attacks go against rational arguments.

In logic and rhetoric, a personal attack is called ad hominem . Ad hominem in Latin means ‘against man’. Instead of promoting good solid 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 and lifeless scarecrow. He is called “straw man” or “scarecrow” alluding to the falsehood of the new argument that at first glance seems true, but analyzing it well it is not, in the same way that a scarecrow seems real from a distance, but not when we we get close enough distance.

In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position that the opponent does not really hold. Instead of dealing with the actual argument, 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 absurd ones.

The straw man fallacy presents a typical scheme:

-A person raises the argument “A”.
-Your opponent misrepresents it and replaces it with the argument “B”. This is similar, but wrong.
-The second person refutes argument “B”.
-Because you have equated the two arguments, it gives the impression 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 Fallacy of the False Dilemma is often a manipulative 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 is not “. 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 Led Zeppelin. music “.

Fallacy of the circular argument or petition of principle (petitio principii)

When a person’s argument simply consists of repeating what he already assumed beforehand, he does not come to any new conclusions. We call this circular argument or circular reasoning.

If someone says, “The Bible is true; so says the Bible ”, that is 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, the assumptions are simply reaffirmed in a way that looks 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 trail fallacy” is a distraction from the plot, typically with some sentiment that appears 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 in color 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 generally not used to hunt fish, so a red herring is a distraction from what he’s supposed to be hunting. “

Fallacy “tu quoque”

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

Focusing on the other person’s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, using the tu quoque fallacy usually deflects criticism away from oneself 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 lessen her responsibility or defend her actions by distributing the blame to other people. But no one else’s fault excuses his 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 is 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 the future costs that we are likely to continue to have without any result. . 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 fallacy of “sunk cost” refers to the economic justification for past expenses that can no longer be recovered and that have not had satisfactory results, excusing itself that it is 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 is difficult to see at times because it is usually a good and responsible move to summon the relevant authorities. However, we can cite authorities, conveniently moving away from other verifiable and concrete evidence, as if the opinion of an expert was always correct.

The chariot fallacy

The car fallacy assumes that 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. The concensus gentium (lat., “Consensus of the people”) is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or all the people agree on it.

We hope 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 sound reasoning and tight logic.