|
Basic Logical Fallacies
Bryan Williams
When discussing issues with liberals and "the Annointed", you will find that
they are masters of rhetorical devices used to avoid direct debate. When I find myself in
a discussion with Liberals, I have found it very useful to know and to be able to
identify the basic fallacies of debate. These fallacies are only one aspect of the
rhetorical devices used by liberals, but they are fundamental to understanding how they
operate.
Ad Hominem
- an attack against a person, instead of the person's arguments. (I would include in
this attacks on style,spelling, grammar, etc, though those can be categorized as
diversionary. Personal choice - they are fallacies nonetheless.)
Ad Populum - "The Bandwagon Fallacy" - supporting an argument by saying
that everyone agrees with it.
Arguing in a Circle(Circular Reasoning)
- supporting an assertion with a reason that is the
assertion itself. Example: The Death Penalty is a good deterrant because it scares people,
and it scares people because it is a good deterrant.
Begging the Question - to support a claim with the claim itself. Example: "The
Bosnia mission is good because the Bosnia mission is good."
Conclusionary Evidence - Support for an argument that merely repeats the claim in the
same or different words; evidence that gives no reason or empirical documentation to
support the claim.
Diversionary Proofs - To make arguments that appear to respond to an opponent
argument but actually do not directly respond to the argument.
Non Sequitur - An argument with very weak or illogical support. Also, a contradictory
claim.
Post Hoc Fallacy - An argument that says one event causes another because the two events
occurred at about the same time.
The most famous example of this is "The debt/deficit soared while Reagan was in
office, therefore, the debt/deficit is Reagan's fault."
Should-Could Fallacy - a flawed argument that states that because the present system can
resolve the problem or can achieve an advantage or can enact a plan, therefore we should
not enact a plan that would solve the problem. Example:
"There are many programs that could solve the x problem, therefore we should not
enact this plan to solve x."
Should-Would Fallacy - a flawed argument that shows that the affirmative plan will not be
passed into action, and therefore,
we should not enact the affirmative plan. Example: "The plan is unconstitutional, so
it will never be permitted."
These definitions, and other elements of debate, can be found in NTC's Dictionary of
Debate by Jim Hanson (National
Textbook Company, 1994). Also, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's book "The Vision of
the Annointed." In this book, Dr. Sowell takes apart many liberal arguments and shows
how liberals distort and mistate the facts in order to make their case. Powerful
ammunition conservatives need in order to keep liberals from moving forward with their
Anti-American agenda.
Bryan Williams
|