Good Read for all New and Old members

Okay I have noticed a lot of bickering on the threads. Not that i think there is anything wrong with that but if you are going to do it do it the right way.So i just wanted to go over 2 things before we get to the meat of it.

Spelding also Grammar : Yeah that is wrong so what? Anyways, that guy on the thread is beating you to death with your own arguments. No matter how bad his spelling is or how apparent it is that english may be his second language pointing that out to him will not make Mars appear to be bigger than the moon on any given day (or whatever your argument is.

You are closed-minded! Deny Ignorance! Just because it is beyond your comprehension does not mean...!!! : These are little cliches that get tossed around a lot here. While all of these statements may be fitting in some cases (like deny ignorace that is the site motto) most of the time they are used they are just added in for no reason. Putting them at the end of what ever you are saying does not make you right in any way.

Being wrong Nobody wants to "be wrong" or incorrect in an argument but there is really no shame in being wrong. Nobody here is looked down upon for being wrong about something in a thread at some point it has happened to everyone here at one time or another. But people get looked down upon when they are wrong and never get over it. like saying

"I do not care what you and your dis-info cover up sources say, the earth is flat! we are supposed to deny ignorace here!"

Okay moving on... The following would be general no nos for posting and debate. Just try to stay away from these and yes i know even i am not perfect and have posted these at one point or another. Here are the fallacies with examples.

Ad Hominem : It means against the man or against the person. It is when a claim or argument is rejected based only on the character of the other guy.
Steve: I believe this photo shows a UFO
Stan: Of course you would say that, you believe in UFOs
Steve: Would that change the fact that you can't ID what is in this photo?
Stan: You are a believer and you thought the Haiti UFO was real you do not know anything.
See stan here never really addressed the issue of the UFO only steves character. No matter how tempting it may be or how correct you may be, attack the issue in the most rude way possible if you must but do not attack the poster. If Hittler told you the sky was blue you could call him a Nazi but the sky is still blue.
The variation of this is Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, this is very similar. This is when you attack the argument on the basis that it is inconsistent with the other guy's past posting behavior or belief. for example:
stan: Wow it looks like we might have a UFO here
Steve: But in the past you said that you do not believe in UFOs. Liar!

Ad Verecundiam : This is also called "appeal to authority", this is when someone uses a source that is an authority (on some irrelevant subject). For example:
John: My friend is very educated and has a PHD. He has studdied the bible and told me that only a retarded person would believe in that christianity.
Bill: Does your friend have a PHD in religious studdies or some related field?
John: No it is a PHD in business, but he is smart, has written books so i believe him.
See just because someone calls themselves "Dr." does not make them educated in every field. So be carefull when you get info from sources. Anyone can call themselves doctors and just because someone was famos for something does not make them right about everything.

Appeal to Belief: Pretty simple, this is when people use the logic that "everyone believes/ everyone knows this to be true so it is correct" Just because some poll shows that 99% of people believe in X does not make X correct. There is a variation of this called appeal to common practice which pretty much the same thing but with action rather than belief.

Appeal to Emotion : This is a big one in the conspiracy theory circle. This is when emotions are used instead of facts to proove something right. Radio Hosts and Documentary makers have found this to be a very effective tool but it is still a fallacy. It pretty much comes down to i believe it to be true therefore it is. Just because something was shocking to you angered you or made you laugh does not make it right.

Ad Baculum : Scare tactics, is all this is. This is when a claim X is made to produce fear then claim Y must be true. Kind of like the appeal to emotion. Example:
"The government is going to kill you or put you in a FEMA camp tomorrow, so you should give your money to the venus project they will save you."
Just because someone can say something to try and scare you does not mean they are at all in any way trying to help you or have a solution for you.

Circular Reasoning : Im sure people have an idea of what this is but i see it the most in the CiR board. This is when you make a claim as a "fact" and it is true because it is a "fact". Although there are obvious forms of this there are more sneaky ways of doing this. Example:
john: Everything joe says is correct.
doug: Why do you say that?
John: because joe tole me he is always right

Biased Statistics People like to throw around numbers and statistics a lot but you should really read up about the statistics you are going to post before you post them or a link to them. biased statistics is pretty straight forward, a biased sample is taken then used to cover a larger or whole group. For example:
A person takes the statistic of "George Bush's approval rating in North Korea" then goes onto say nobody not one person in the world approves of Geroge Bush here is the link on his approval rating.

Ad Ignorantiam The burden of proof. This is when the burden of proof is put on the wrong party. If were debating over some UFO photo and the skeptic says you cannot proove it is real so it is fake. If you are going to debate something with someone just always assume the burden of proof is on you. Example: "You can't proove that there is no such thing as aliens so that means aliens are real."

Composition : This is kind of like biased statistics and circular logic. This is when characteristics of someting is used on a wider scale than it should.
Example: "A bear eats 100 times more than the average man, that means bears as a whole eat 100times more than all the people in the world"

Questionable Cause : This is where the wrong cause is assinged to something. Just because something happens whenever another event takes place does not mean that one causes the other.
example: Only sick people take cold medicine, if i never take cold medicine i will never get the cold.

False Dilemma : This is a common one too. This is where some delima is made between 2 things and both could be wrong. People will sometime resort to drawing a line in the sand to support their view on something. Example:
John: Everyone who believes in UFOs knows that they are from the 32423423th dimension
bill: I do not believe that
John: I would have never guessed you were a skeptic bill.

Red Herring This is where people are discussing a topic and then someone comes in and changes the subject in attempt to "win" a debate on something. for example:
John: so yeah dave we think that 9/11 was an inside job
George: 9/11 could not possibly be an inside job, the president protects the United states if it was not for our government the world would have been taken over by Nazis.

Straw Man : This is very common and watch out it is easy to fall for and it is even easier for you to do it on accident. This is where you are debating something and someone makes up the other position or exagerates the other guys position abondoning the original topic. example:
bill: Drugs should be illegal
John: Drugs should be legal
bill: Oh that is typical another tree huggin hippy, you know global warming is a big scam right. ?
John: no global warming is a real threat.
See they were debating drugs, intead of attacking the issue bill introduced global warming in attempt to proove john wrong about his stance on drugs which he never did.

reply to post by zaiger


Excellent and crystal clear.

I believe that people ( including me ) would be doing a wise thing if they keep your post in mind or even have it open on the side to check that they are not deviating from the use of pleasant conduct.

Guess what English is my second language. Can you tell? I don't know.

It's been a while since I joined, so can't remember - but this should be required reading before signing up and posting.

I wanted to commend you on this excellent post, but couldn't figure out how to do it without making a one-liner. Then I remembered the news story external to ATS where I added a comment this week. My post there, which included links to local news sources, must have been a good one, because the ad hominem attack that followed was a doozy! ATS is definitely improving my style, and educational posts like yours help a lot. Not only am I more careful how I present information, but I recognize what the 'other guy' is trying to do to counter my argument.

Excellent Post,

ATS has soo much debate on here, I find it strange that many may spend hundreds of hours replying and responding and going around in circles, when they dont know the basic philosophy of debate and are then unaaware when tactics used in this form of communication since before greek times is used on them.

Thank you

Elf

Excellent post and suitable for this lil' video from QualiaSoup:



I'd highly recommend more of his videos as well as zaiger's advice.

-m0r

Nice post however I am a bit disappointed you didn't include attacks on authors in it. This is very rampant on forum:

Specially what I have faced in example:

Dan: USA condemned last year also building new illegal settlements & inspite of that Israeli Govt. has given clearance to 600 new settlements which are illegal under UN.
Lucy: Most of your threads are related to Israel...you are anti-semite, jew hater , nazi!!

Harry: Iraq war was illegal as per UN
Jone: Why don't you go and live in ME if you think war was illegal.

Joe: The new leaked document states US soldiers tortured detainees
Peter: You are anti-american and you hate America

Jim: Humans species have caused massive deforestation and pollution which threatens massive extinction of wildlife and should either change their ways or deserve to be eradicated.
Peter: Why don't you kill yourself!

etc. etc.

I can post examples of this but I will not embarrass other posters on board. but it would be more helpful if people discuss the subject and not the person.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by December_Rain]

'I would have never guessed you were a skeptic bill'

haha

spot on

[edit on 2-3-2010 by gYvMessanger]

Originally posted by December_Rain
Nice post

however I am a bit disappointed you didn't include attacks on authors in it.

He did include ad hominem attacks:

Originally posted by zaiger

Ad Hominem : It means against the man or against the person. It is when a claim or argument is rejected based only on the character of the other guy.

which, as I understand it, would include the examples you listed.

Where it gets really tricky with regards to ad homs, in my opinion, is in the frequent case that an ad hom attack is included in a long post part of which addresses the actual argument. If for example in the interchange between Jim and Peter, Peter had argued that humans do not deserve to be eradicated for their ecological crimes, but then ended his post by saying "Why don't you kill yourself?" the situation is a little blurrier. Then Peter can claim that he was just using that to show the hypocrisy of Jim's argument (that he thinks humans deserve eradication but does not want to apply that to himself). But in my opinion it remains an attack on the poster rather than the argument.

Nice list of argumentative techniques to watch out for, zaiger. I particularly like the points you made about some of them being easy to fall into using oneself if one is not paying attention.

reply to post by americandingbat


Yea the ad hominem thing can get sticky because it is easy to hide. Now this is my opinion on it, im not saying it is right this is just my opinion. As long as you are addressing the topic as the main point a ad hominem is somewhat okay
1.
peter : 1+1=4
john: you are an iddiot and you did not even finish highschool why would i believe you.

2.
peter : 1+1=4
john: 1+1=2 you can get a calculator if you want and see for yourself, you are a retard.

Now in example one just an ad hominem was used, while 1+1 does not equal 4 John's post did nothing to proove that it equals anything. While in example 2 an ad hominem was used but the issue was addressed and without a doubt 1+1 was shown to equal 2. Now again this is my opinion but example 2 was rude and you will not make much friends posting like that i think it is okay since the issue was addressed and resolved. But like i said earlier ad homs should be avoided for the most part.

reply to post by December_Rain


Those examples would be covered under ad hominem attacks, should comments like that get out of hand hit the alert button.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by zaiger]

[edit on 2-3-2010 by zaiger]

Nice post.

I gave you a flag and I would give you a star, but they seem to have disappeared.

I wish that more people understood the principles behind reason and logic, as well as, what exactly makes a logical fallacy a fallacy.

I usually point these out to people in debates on this board, but I gotta tell you that it normally goes over like a lead zeppelin.

I have also been wrong, on more than one occasion, and it never feels good, but it is always better to man up and type "props to you on pointing out my mistake" than continue with a ridiculous argument that is obviously flawed.

I personally have spent more time lately responding to individuals with whom I agree than the ones with whom I disagree.
Not that I don't enjoy a good debate, but several of the individuals that I have engaged in debate on ATS lately were woefully uneducated in both the format and mutual respect shown in debates on ATS.

I can understand newbies who make mistakes, engage in personal attacks, and present arguments riddled with logical fallacies, but the old timers here on ATS, and the newbies with a solid grasp on these concepts, need to step up and point out anyone making these mistakes, but in a respectful and informative manner.

I have fallen into all of the traps.
I have engaged in all of the logical fallacies, and I am sure that I will again in the future.

But I am thankful for the individuals who have taken the time to point out my flaws to me.

Once again.
Great thread.

A List of Fallacious Arguments.

This I got from a similar thread and there is another older one that went into great detail on the same topic.

It's good to post and consider these from time to time.

The linked list is particularly comprehensive and a good read.

All of us can find things on this we are guilty of

Oops

[edit on 3/2/2010 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by Blaine91555


Yep covered pretty well a long time ago here.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but it bears repeating from time to time.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by zaiger


wxcwllwnt s&f i think that all new members must read through this and take a quiz on it to gaurentee they read it in order to be a member on this site i know ive had my share of doing those things but imma turn over a new leaf

great OP thanks for bringing this to our attention!

actually all members should take a quiz on this to keep their membership like a monthly review or something
like they have to answer it and get it correct a week from getting online after they recieve it in their u2u and their should be ads or flyers or something so everyone knowws what time of the month it is

oops! i didnt mean any pun like that wow i cant believe i didnt catch taht lol o well you guys know what i mean im sure
[edit on 15-4-2010 by ashanu90]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by ashanu90]

Good post zaiger, just one 'Spelding also Grammar' [sic] complaint...

www.wsu.edu...



Sry couldn't help myself...