Here you see my centerpoint of the "Rules of Flaming" - AKA The Rules of Conservative Correctness/Debate, or The Rules of Liberal Debate - that they show how Debate has been displaced by Flaming.
The original Rules were deliberately vague and self-referential to see which readers have the
capability to find the errors. I have here shown various fallacies and flaws, and have links to some e-mail and other examples that demonstrate people using these fallacies.
Look also at some BOOKS about debating and logic, or check links on Propaganda techniques and the rules of Debate. Or, look at various fallacies that can occur. Also various errors using those fallacies, explained.
Also another version of fallacies listed from the book below.
Using a claim made by some person whose knowledge of the subject is questionable or unreliable. While it may be appropriate to quote a person in their field of expertise, their knowledge in other areas should not be used as 'authoritative'.
Utilizing a statement as a premise that has not been proven true to present a conclusion that it is false, or conversely, using a statment that has not been proven false to prove a conclusion true.
Basically "namecalling". The "ad hominem" comes from the Latin, and means "to the man" - it refers to attacking the person, not their ideas. Personal attacks per se are not always inappropriate, but ONLY if it is relevant to the subject under discussion.
The claim is made that 'everyone' or, alternately, "everyone worth listening to" believes something or does something. Commonly uses polls or questionable value to support the premise.
Utilizing a word or phrase ambiguously, often done by selecting terminology with multiple meanings. This is usually done in the premise, with the conclusion depending on the ambiguity of the word or term.
Presents alternatives for some action that may be taken, withholding alternatives that are as valid as the ones presented. Usually, of the alternatives presented, all but one are considered unacceptable.
This involves a comparison of two or more things, using similarities between them. It, however, is faulty in ignoring other important characteristics of the things compared.
Related to the Questionable Cause fallacy. This assumes that because some members of a 'set' have certain characteristics, all or most members of the 'set' have those characteristics. (The term "set" is a generalized term derived from mathematics).
Based in the Straw Man and Hasty Generalization fallacies. The false views are attributed to all members of some group [the 'straw men'].
Slippery Slope
Formed of equal parts Unwarranted extrapolation, Questionable Cause and usually to support Scare Tactics. The basic idea is that "If we start doing ][, then it will continue to move toward )(" - with the implied ". . . and we don't want that!". It assumes that the first action "][" is related to the second ")(" directly.
Coming - how to find and unscramble various traps in logic, including a look at statistics.
Top of Page