Debate and argument are important communication skills, but arguments do not always depend on sound reasoning or accuracy. People may use “tricks” called logical fallacies to change the subject, persuade an audience or avoid answering a question directly. This article introduces several kinds of fallacies and examples to help readers notice and respond to unfair arguments. The examples are simplified illustrations, not proof that a particular person is using a fallacy.
Debate and chess: a comparison
Debate and chess have some similarities: both require logical thinking and planning toward a goal. The article compares that goal with “winning”—persuading another person to accept an argument in debate, or checkmating an opponent in chess.
Putting an opponent in a difficult position
In chess, the goal may be to checkmate the opponent. In a debate, a participant may try to get the other person to accept an argument or be unable to respond. The comparison does not mean debate is always a contest with only one winner.
Using logic
Both activities involve reasoning. Chess has explicit rules for moving pieces, while debate depends on sound reasoning to make an argument credible and persuasive.
Cheating
The source says both activities can involve “cheating”: an illegal move in chess or the use of a logical fallacy in debate.
Cheating in debate: logical fallacies
What is a logical fallacy, and why might it be used in a debate?
What is a logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning: an argument that is invalid or unreasonable. It may be used intentionally or unintentionally to shift the topic, persuade someone or hide a weakness in an argument.
Examples of logical fallacies
There are many kinds of fallacies. This article introduces examples it considers common and explains them with simple illustrations.
Fallacy pattern 1: avoiding a direct argument
This group of fallacies may avoid answering a question directly or redirect the discussion to another subject.
Ad hominem: attacking the person
This fallacy attacks the person speaking instead of addressing the point they made. Example: “You have not even paid all your rent, so how can you talk about this?”
Tu quoque: “you do it too”
This response accuses the other person of doing the same thing instead of addressing the argument. Example: “You made a mistake too, so how can you criticize me?”
Appeal to emotion
This uses feelings such as fear, anger or pity to persuade in place of relevant reasoning. Example: “If you do not do what I ask, I will be very upset.”
Straw man
This distorts another person’s argument and then attacks the distorted version. The source’s example is: “You said you do not like this television, so you must not like your grandfather.” The example is intentionally weak and does not illustrate a realistic connection clearly.
Fallacy pattern 2: invalid reasoning
This group concerns reasoning that does not support its conclusion or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
Gambler’s fallacy
This is a mistaken belief about probability. Example: “I have lost several times, so I must win next time.” Earlier independent outcomes do not by themselves ensure the next result.
Middle ground fallacy
This assumes that the midpoint between two arguments must be correct. Example: “One person says taxes should rise by 10%, another says they should not rise at all, so the increase should be 5%.” More evidence is needed to determine the right answer.
False dilemma
This presents only two choices when other options may exist. Example: “You are either with us or with the enemy.”
Appeal to popularity
This claims that something is correct because many people believe it. Example: “Everyone uses this product, so it must be good.” Popularity alone does not prove quality.
Appeal to authority
This relies on an expert or famous person whose opinion may not be relevant to the issue. Example: “A famous scientist said…” The person’s expertise and the evidence for the specific claim still matter.
Slippery slope
This claims that one action will inevitably lead to a series of undesirable outcomes without enough supporting evidence. Example: “If children are allowed to watch television, they will become addicted to games and eventually become addicted to drugs.”
Appeal to ignorance
This claims something is true because it has not been shown false, or false because it has not been shown true. Example: “No one has proved ghosts exist, so ghosts do not exist.” Lack of evidence alone does not settle every claim.
No true Scotsman
This narrows a group’s definition after a counterexample appears, in order to avoid the challenge. Example: “A true Scotsman does not drink whisky with soda.”
What is good reasoning?
Good reasoning uses relevant facts and evidence, avoids bias and remains open to different views. A sound argument should connect its evidence to its conclusion.
Why learn about logical fallacies?
The source lists several potential benefits of learning to recognize fallacies.
Understand argumentative tricks
Recognizing these patterns may help people notice tactics that distract from the argument and respond more effectively.
Encourage critical thinking
Learning about fallacies can encourage people to analyze and assess information from more than one angle.
Assess credibility
Recognizing weak reasoning may help readers evaluate the credibility of information and arguments. A fallacy label should not replace examining evidence and context.
💬 Want to discuss your finances with a professional? Add us on LINE.
👉 Add us on LINE for a free consultation
Or scan the QR code to add us.
