So I recently (and perhaps mistakenly) lost my temper in a thread here on Fanpop. I'd rather not link to it, as it wasn't my finest hour and I perhaps embarrassed myself.

I will say that yes, it was about Obama.

I will also say that no, it wasn't a logical discussion about Obama.

Let me begin by saying that I like Obama-- but I know he isn't perfect. I am open to criticism, and actually complimented (in a comment to my parents) right-wing politicians who held up their counter-health care proposal in silent protest during a speech on the topic. I complimented them because they were being dignified in their disagreement (in my opinion). Unlike that other guy that heckled him.

So I wanted to make it perfectly clear. I think everyone should always criticize and feel free to criticize the president and his (or her) administration. There is no caveat to this. It doesn't matter who is leading our nation, that person should always be scrutinized.

That being said, in this conversation I had, there was not much criticism so much as there was low and dirty insults. Now, a year ago, I wrote an article about link. I will admit right now that some of it perhaps includes some judgmental comments. It's a biased article. Several of my statements were based on my impressions of her from her speeches and quotes (See the first point). However, it also includes facts and statistics that I had researched about her.

It's a biting article. At the time, I was very emotional on the topic. And it may even be a little unfair.

But my rhetoric is not illogical. And there is a difference between rhetoric and fallacies. And that's what this article is about.



In response to this conversation on Obama, I received the following e-mail from a nameless user:

"My problem with oboma beleivers is this:
Most are african americans--which I hve no prob with--we are all human!
Obama preaches his will against all americans!
This is an evil man--just like Hitler!!!
He does not care who he destroys--just as long as he is victoriuos!"

The following is my verbatim response:

"link

link

link

I used wikipedia pages so it would be easier for you to understand why the arguments you gave are impossible to logically rebut because they are, in themselves, devoid of logic."



A long time ago, I began an article called "Logical Fallacies and Their Uses and Failings in Debate." I began it with, "So interestingly enough, I do believe this is the first real debate article I have written for this spot that focuses specifically on problems that I have seen in several debates."

I made a few points and discussed a few fallacies before I got tired, and the article sat in the "drafts" section of my profile for maybe six months. I think that everyone here should know how to examine the crazy arguments you hear and explain exactly why they make no sense. At the very least, it confuses your opponent. Unfortunately, my laziness overpowers me again, and I'm unwilling to do all the convenient research for you. So if you're really interested, I suggest looking them up yourself. Perhaps the Wikipedia links I (rather rudely, but he was rude first) sent might help you out. But if you're really interested, try a debate book.



Here's what I had to say on Reductio Ad Absurdum:

"One of the most common things I see in this spot is Reductio ad Absurdum which literally means, "reduced to absurdity." This occurs when someone takes a given argument (for example, that man has evolved with a defense mechanism [religion] to protect himself from the knowledge of his own mortality) and reduces it to its most absurd conclusion. (For example, the "link" that atheists are deficient, since they don't believe in religion.) Another example would be in the case of gay marriage. An absurd (and yet, often used) argument is, "If we let gays marry, people will want to marry their pets!" By doing this, the debater tries to make his opponent's argument sound absurd. This can actually work-- but you'll want to be careful when and how you use it.

"I throw out words like "logical fallacy" and "circular reasoning" as if I am standing behind a debate podium trying to impress the judges. What's interesting, though, is that these arguments that are not necessarily rational, can be very persuasive if you're addressing the right audience, and no one calls you on it (believe me, from now on, I definitely will). So this article serves to define several logical fallacies in debate and when it is actually appropriate to use them."



As you can see, the original article I wrote had a sneaky undertone. Technically, logical fallacies are dangerous. And yet, believe it or not, lawyers knowingly use them. Why? Because sometimes, they work. Especially if nobody says "objection!" or points out the fallacies. Fallacies are tricky. If you do use them in your argument to get some cheap points, the trained debater (and judge and audience) will notice. I consider it a rather dirty trick, as it also underappreciates the intelligence of everyone else listening to the argument. However, this is only if you, like several lawyers, KNOWINGLY use logical fallacies. If you accidentally use them-- because you heard them elsewhere and believed it-- it will undermine your intelligence. And that can also look bad to a judge, and especially your opponent.

In other words-- be cool, be fair, be smart-- don't use logical fallacies. Unless you want to get a verbal beat down from yours truly.