In this article, I’ll shed light on the subject of logical fallacies & how to spot those fallacies

Often, I catch myself having debates or discussions with people. As much as I love to have a dialogue and to discover and understand different perspectives, it’s crucial to be aware of how people present their arguments. People often make arguments that, at first sight, seem appealing, but if you look deeper into the nuances of their argument, you’ll see that their argument will start to fall apart. There are several benefits to knowing logical fallacies, one of which is being able to spot errors people make in their thought processes. In my series called The Art of Debate, I’ll discuss logical fallacies that I’ve encountered and other sorts of logical fallacies.

• What is a Logical fallacy?
• The Fallacies I Have Faced

I. What Is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs when incorrect arguments or irrelevant points are presented without any evidence to substantiate them. I think the question is this: why do people resort to making logical fallacies? I think the answer is that people desire to make their message more persuasive. Well, there are, of course, more reasons why people often utilize the art of logical fallacies to reach the goal of whatever they have in mind. It boils down to the fact that there are several reasons why people resort to logical fallacies, but most of the time it is an attempt to be more persuasive.

Another reason someone would resort to using a logical fallacy is to discredit their opponent. This fallacy is called poisoning the well [1]. Poisoning the well is a tool that’s used to obtain adverse information about the opponent from the start in an attempt to make their claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim. How does this go into action? The person who commits this fallacy primes the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start.

A great example is Trump. Now, before I start, I’m not stating that I’m anti- or pro-Trump. I’m just showing an example. In 2021, Fauci, who is an immunologist, accused Trump of poisoning the well [2].

The question is, How do you refute such an allegation that is being made? That is a good question to ask because there are multiple options, and you have to decide which is going to effectively debunk the statement being made. You could remain silent, but it’ll look like you’ve accepted the claim that has been made. I wouldn’t remain silent. You can defend yourself; this sounds obvious, and I agree. What I mean is that you need to know how to defend yourself in that moment because if you keep on talking, the accusation will start to confirm the claim at a certain point. I would call out the logical fallacy and continue to state my field of vision.

II. The Logical Fallacies I Have Faced

The Art of Debate: It always amazes me how people can come together and have a discussion about literally anything. How the ancient Greeks and Romans were ahead of their time and how political debate now is presented in the modern sphere Anyway, I’ve debated and debated about all sorts of topics. From the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the Russia-Ukraine war.

It is understandable that when debating contentious topics, oftentimes people will get emotional and express their emotions. This is understandable, and I would make the case that showing how you feel is a great way to connect with the person you’re debating with or an audience. However, I do have to say that to a certain extent, you can show your emotions. I mean, if you’re going to break down on stage, for example, or when having a dialogue with someone, that’s probably not helpful in any way to make a stronger case.

Back to the point: Oftentimes, people tend to be emotional as the conversation is going on, and the other party is starting to show frustration. This can result in fighting instead of an actual conversation. In these situations, when people express their anger or frustration, it will end up with all sorts of accusations. Forget that part; it can also be the case that you or the person you’re debating gets frustrated because they or you don’t understand the argument or misrepresent the argument. I’ve ended up in situations where people don’t understand what I’m saying.

Now, I don’t want to brag, but I want to emphasize that I don’t have a problem understanding opposing arguments. How I do this is if someone makes a claim, I make them exhaust the claim, and then I’ll summarize their point. In debate, this is also called paraphrasing [3]. Paraphrasing forces you to better understand the opposing arguments that are being made. Also, aside from that, I want to point out a different sort of technique that could enhance your debate skills. It’s called the principle of charity [4]. The principle of charity means that when interpreting one’s argument, you should assume that the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one that the speaker meant to convey.

You will be in situations where you end up not understanding the opposing argument or the other way around. When someone intentionally misrepresents or focuses attention on certain aspects of the argument while ignoring or missing other parts, which usually results in irrelevant rebuttals, this is called a strawman fallacy [5]. I want to point out two things. Ignoring irrelevant information is good, but you have to know what is irrelevant or not. Also, I want to emphasize that if someone genuinely doesn’t understand your argument, that isn’t a strawman.

I’ll list the logical fallacies that I’ve faced the most:

• The Strawman Fallacy: When someone intentionally misrepresents or focuses attention on certain aspects of the argument while ignoring or missing other parts, which usually results in irrelevant rebuttals
• Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making [6].
• Argument Anecdote: referring to evidence that is collected in a non-scientific manner and supported by isolated, specific instances of an event.

I do want to say that I’m no angel and that I also resorted to these logical fallacies before I learned about the skills of conversation and debate. Now that I’ve learned about how to make better arguments and how to be persuasive, it helps me to convey my arguments in a better frame.

You’ve reached the end of this article. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to read my article. If you want to read more of my articles, drop a like and a comment down below. I’ll give you a heads-up when a new article arrives.

Sutor Ne Ultra Crepidam

A Man Named Philosophy