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.

You're stupid to call fishes reptiles. Just because you never did well on the ladders doesn't mean you can call fishes whatever you want cause they are clearly not repltiles

hi master of desaster, thank you for demonstrating our first logical fallacy. that would be a red herring. a bunch of irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with what i said. and although the case for it is not as strong, that's almost certainly a genetic fallacy. you're referencing my history and seeking to dismiss what i said on that basis, when my history is irrelevant, all that matters is my argument.

also possibly a strawman argument, you appear to be attacking an argument about fishes and reptiles that i never made.

if you were attempting to commit all four fallacies, that was a valiant effort, but there was no ad hominem attack. a personal attack by itself is not an ad hominem, you have to be using the attack in an attempt to dismiss the argument, which you have not done.

Damn. I tried so hard :(

Professor Wally, please explain what's the point of using logic and debating constructively and with some semblance of intelligence and coherence.

You can't show that you are right or that somebody else is wrong with incoherent, illogical arguments.

So, that means all your arguments are illogical and incoherent.

Edited 12/19/2016 12:18:01

Hi FDR, thanks for wonderfully demonstrating the genetic fallacy. You've tried to deflect what I've said by bringing up my history. If you wish to make a coherent and logical argument, you need to actually address what I've said, which you have not done.

Edited 12/19/2016 12:52:52

I did address what you said, by telling you that you demonstrate what you preach is bad.

Referring to what I said is not the same as addressing it.

What you've just done is actually a logical and coherent argument, you've responded directly to what I said and tried to refute it.

If you think that was not a genetic fallacy then it was easily also a strawman. The argument you were attacking was 'I've never been guilty of this myself' and I never argued that.

Edited 12/19/2016 12:57:54

Just commenting to say I downvoted.

great! a list of all the arguments globeheads use to defend their fairytale ideology!

ＦＬＡＴ　ＥＡＲＴＨ

the original post contains all the fallacies.

Hi Stewie, thanks for demonstrating a red herring, bringing up irrelevant nonsense rather than addressing my argument.

That also happens to be untrue. Strawman and red herring are not possible as I wasn't responding to any arguments. I made no personal attacks instead of making arguments, I made them along with arguments: so no ad hominem. Genetic fallacy is possible depending on what you define as my argument.

Edited 12/19/2016 14:57:44

you missed my point Wally, I suggest you re-read my sentence and re-check your post again. I won't bother explaining it to you.

also how exactly do you expect people to come up with arguments on an "introduction" post? The only people who will post here are either trolls or just bored people, with me being the latter part.

and yes, I have nothing else to do atm.

i read your post several times and it still seems that you are accusing me of committing all four fallacies and you evidently cannot read because two of them are not even possible.

Notice he never said that you committed the fallacies...

ad hominem goy