Ad Hominem
Attacking your opponent in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Appeal to Authority
Using the opinion of an authority figure or institution, instead of making an argument.
Appeal to Popularity
An attempt to validate an argument by referring to how many people agree with it.
Burden of Proof
Saying that the person making a claim doesn’t have to prove it, but that others must disprove it.
False Dilemma
Two alternatives are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Slippery Slope
Asserting that, if X happens, then Y will then happen too, so X shouldn’t be allowed to happen.
Straw Man
Misrepresenting someone’s argument in order to make it easier to attack.
No True Scotsman
Faced with a counter-example that disproves a universal claim, the claim is redefined to exclude the example.
Online Resources:
To be honest, i am so excited about this topic when Sir Adrian lectured my Friday Class at the previous week. In my opinion, it is a very important topic and material to be discussed together because it is used oftenly especially in politics on Television. A lot of people especially politicians are debating on TV and we have a chance to analyze what they really are doing in debate. Whether their arguments are strong or just seem like strong but very fragile arguments, The most often kind of weak arguments that politicians on TV use is Ad Hominem. At first glance, it looks like a very strong way to debate someone, but after i learned about this material, it is like opening another level of perspective. Most of the time, theres a lot of people who taunting the opposition and questioning their level of relevancy, although it is cheap tactics that rarely works in general; but in Indonesia, it is different, a lot of people easily believe something without doing any research at all thus it is a very annoying low but effective tactics to use.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a first for me to learn about this and I’m actually really interested in it when it was introduced in the second last session. Even if these fallacies are often used by politicians when they give public speeches or other important conversations with other important people, I myself am not that interested in politics so I wouldn’t really use them that way. What I would love to use them on are on my friends because I have this one friend that likes to twist my arguments and lose to him but when I think about my arguments again, I could’ve said something different that would’ve made him speechless instead. These fallacies would help me a lot when I argue but I would try not to use them too much because it would probably make me unable to argue properly when it comes down to it anytime anywhere with someone whoever they are.
ReplyDeleteI think we all agree that we have used these logical fallacies throughout our lives; I guess logical fallacies is more of an authoritarian thing to do when we are in a situation. It is not wrong to use logical fallacies for arguments because we as humans tend to have this urge to disagree or disaprove someone's point but then we counter it with something that's maybe bang out of order but that something is to prove our point and therefore make our argument more powerful. Personally, I have used Ad Hominem quite a lot; it is one of the most useful fallacies in terms of arguments, we don't necessarily attack or insult the other person to prove our point we just use their argument against them. Appeal to popularity is another one which is most notable for it's effectiveness in arguments which I also use in arguments.
ReplyDelete