@Felidia, Thanks. I was reminded of this post:
previous discussions:
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/224405-introduction-logic
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/224423-introduction-logic
a lot of people in this forum like to attempt to have debates about various topics, but don't have even a basic understanding of how logic works. it is my aim that this post will help them begin to form coherent arguments.
these are the four most common logical fallacies i see committed here:
strawman argument -- attacking an argument that was not made, rather than addressing the argument that was made.
ad hominem attack -- making a personal attack and pretending that is an argument, rather than addressing the argument that was made.
red herring -- bringing up something unrelated and irrelevant, rather than addressing the argument that was made.
genetic fallacy -- attacking the history of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the argument that was made.
notice anything these all have in common? in each case, the argument that was made was not addressed. if you wish to actually debate constructively and with some semblance of intelligence and coherence, you need to address the argument that was made. If you're not addressing the argument made, you're not even in the game. you're just babbling irrelevant bullshit and making a fool of yourself.
i was going to provide some examples but then I realized this forum is full of stubborn trolls who don't have even a basic grasp of logic, who will not heed or likely even be able to understand my advice, so they'll provide the examples for us. i'll identify fallacies in the thread as they are committed.
Source:
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/224449-introduction-logic?Offset=0 Post by Wally Balls.
Can someone rate my logic?
1) Wally Balls says that stubborn trolls don't have a grasp at logic and they are on this forum.
2) These trolls are frequently guilty of making ad hominem attacks
3) Wally Balls frequently makes ad hominem attacks, see for example this thread.
4) Wally Balls proves he is either A) Wrong that he is an expert in logic, or B) a troll.
It is also conceivable he is C) all of the above.
