Argument and logic

This is in reply to Desu's post



Nice Desu trying to school me on debates.Despite saying you love debates Desu, ive never seen you take part in one.But based on your biased comment against me, its clear you have no idea about what you are talking about.I am not an expert and i dont know everything, i am still learning and i am trying, because english is not even my native language.That being said, i know the basics.Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html

You accused me and only me, of many things and i would like a chance to defend my self, in a civilized manner.So i will please ask for this thread to not be locked, until it flowers.I want to learn from my mistakes, if any and i would like to see where i was wrong, if i was.

You said about Tik toks arguments.I would like you to post here, all those tik toks "sound" "valid" arguments, that you claim i ignored.I dare you to find them and post them here.You know that means an argument not only valid, but with clear "true" premises, to support a "true" conclusion.Other than his stronger argument which was about immigration, which i ignored, because frankly i dont know much about, all his arguments were inductive with either false or hidden premises and in many cases invalid.

The debate started of pretty simple, it was about anarchy and how close to anarchy ISIS really is.I made my argument, about it, pretty clear.Sound and true.I never got a real counter argument, in respond.

Instead, i got a barrage and bombardment of fallacious new arguments, red herring, changing the topic, derailing it, full of slippery slopes, straw mans, essentializing all the time, filled with half truths and begging the question all the time.


Not to mention the ad-hominem attacks.You know he started it dont you?Did you read the thread from the beggining?Want me to post here the quotes, to prove he started the ad-hominem.Want me to post, how this escalated and how personal he made it with very insulting personal attacks and name calling?Yet you told ME, that i tried to take down my opponent with ad hominem, when the FACTS shows us that i was just defending my self, against his.What do you have to say for yourself now Desu?Why are you so biased against me?I deserve an anwer.

And not only the ad hominem, but the bombardment of fallacies which followed, like i have the time, to miniquote and dissect his post, 50 times each time, to show him that.I am not getting paid for this.I didnt sign up for this.The debate i signed up for, was pretty clear and i made my argument in that.And i was willing to spend the time, if he was able to follow the simple rules and guidelines, but he didnt.Here is a list of fallacies out the back of my head,i can identify without even going back to read his posts again.Pretty sure if i go back i can find so many more.I admit i may be guilty of some myself, but not even close to the mess, he called a rebuttal and which you are defending.


Appeal to probability
appeal to ignorance
appeal to tradition
Appeal to Pity
Appeal from consequences
argument from adverse consequences
argumentum ad baculum
Conjunction fallacy
Masked man fallacy
Affirming a disjunct
confirmation bias
confusion of correlation and causation
excluded middle
black and white
half truths
meaningless question
misunderstanding the nature of statistics
non sequitur
observational selection
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
reification fallacy
special pleading
statistics of small numbers
straw man
Appeal to Closure
Argument from Inertia
Argument from Motives
Argumentum ad Baculam
Big Lie Technique
The Complex Question
Either-Or Reasoning
Finish the Job
Guilt by Association
Just in Case
Non Sequitur
Overgeneralization
Playing on Emotions
Post Hoc Argument
Reductionism
Sending the Wrong Message
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Snow Job
TINA
We Have to Do Something


Now excuse me if i dont have the strenth of character, patience and maturity and frankly just the free time, to first of all ignore all the personal attacks, ignore all the fallacies, lies and weak arguments and spend so many hours every time, pointing them out, his lies, his misleading manipulations of my comments and quote his every sentence, to correct him.Thats madness.And thats his tactic.And excuse me if his personal attacks and taunting, got to me.I am a human being after all.And i damn well have the right to defend myself against his slandering.

Yet,after all this, you paint me as the ignorant, bad guy and I dont like it.I deserve an answer i think.I would like you Desu, to back up your claims and accusations now.

I haven't read what the debate was but I'm sure tik tok was in the right.
Also assburger

Geschrieben von Aristosseur, 02.10.2014 at 11:11

I haven't read what the debate was but I'm sure tik tok was in the right.
Also assburger

Aristosseur's Theory is correct.
Aristosseur is right.

On behalf of the church of zizou I condemn you for your heretical autism, you forgot the most vital fallacious arguments which are the following:

Appeal to Autism
Appeal to Faggotry
Appeal to Teenaged Angst

All of these you are currently violating; please correct your argument and repost, thanks (and may I suggest first contacting Gardevoir for his learned skills in the matter)

-peer review board for church of zizou academia & rhetoric department

Moved to off-topic, but I'm betting this thread won't make it to page 2.

Khal... You are so wrong

Khal one day you will finally recognize the superiority of fascism. Until that day, you will be constantly angry and confused.

I do love a good debate. Arguments are great, but not in such a rudimentary form. Too bad the atWar community doesn't offer much in terms of civil debate.

I wish I cared enough to give you a genuine reply, responding to your every point and question, but I simply don't. When I locked that thread, and made the post that you took a screen shot of, it was because I had just read the last part of the thread. I read the thread since the start, and that was fine, I understand people can get heated, name calling happens, but that last part... That created a very decisive element in my mind.

You posted pictures of yourself, then called your opponent out for not doing the same? This is what struck me. This is what I locked the thread for, because that is not debate. I didn't care about the rest of the thread, those were serious clashes between your thoughts and Tik-Tok's. Some parts just happened to be civil, and some not.

It seems pretty clear neither party paid much attention when they made those logical fallacies found throughout the thread. I assume you went through the trouble of looking those wiki links up and having a read through them yourself. Now go back and objectively look through your own posts in that thread with your newly acquired knowledge. Your posts are littered with fallacies. Moreso than Tik-Tok, if I count my paragraph above into it. But this isn't a "who wronged more" competition. You shouldn't be racing to the bottom. I do not care what lists either of you pull up.

I'll allow this to be open for one more reply from you, then I'm closing it. Make it short and concise. Make your reply count.

I think we just have a different moral compass.And i think, we share different codes of ethics and sense of right and wrong.Because what struck you, were some photographs.What struck me, was a shameless fascist bully.That talked too much.Empty words he couldnt back up, with actions and this was the purpose of the photographs.Because i hate bullies.And liars.People like him, are by the book bullies.They prey on the weak.They attack and abuse what they think are weak, poor, individuals who cant defend themselfs.He thought he could do it to me, aswell.But he should have known better.Because i have the strenth to bully them back and im gonna use it.As you said its a clash of ideologies.He wants to see the weak suffering.I want to protect them.I live by my values.And personally, i find it glorious when the bully, gets bullied back.Karma..

As for your post, i had no problem whatsoever with locking that thread.It wasnt healthy anyway.But i think you just should have known better, than just reading the last page and make a closing announcement like this, favouring only one participant and condemning the other in public.If you favour Tik tok's ideology,thats your business and i respect it, but you are a mod and your opinion on these matters carry weight.
As for the rest, i think we can agree to disagree,theres nothing wrong with that, i guess.I have nothing more to add.Thanks for the reply.

Geschrieben von Khal.eesi, 03.10.2014 at 18:08

Because what struck you, were some photographs.

You don't seem to understand what I meant by "what struck me." It's a serious transgression that I do not ignore when I am arguing on the internet or witnessing an argument. I try not to start an argument with people who do this (e.g. you), or else I'll go full out on bringing their errors to a stop. In this case I'm a mod, and have the power to stop it without putting any effort into it. I also could have closed the topic anytime before that post for the useless argument you two were having, but decided to step in when your picture was posted. Obviously I read the whole thread for context before locking the thread.

Let me make a comparison for what you did by bringing the real world into your little argument. It'd be like "Person A" posting their Facebook and pointing out that they have 500+ friends added, then asking how many Facebook friends "Person B" has. Does it bring relevance to an argument? No. Does it prove "Person A" is more correct than "Person B"? No. I've seen it many times and at no point does a real life picture, or, for the sake of my example, number of Facebook friends, prove your opinion. In this day and age the people who are very aware of what happens online are very secretive with their personal information, while others who are less aware are very free about it. The person willing to give away personal information shouldn't enjoy some superior standpoint because of it. (I am also fully aware that Facebook in no way models real life in its completion, but as the closest real life example online, it will suffice.)

As for the, "shameless fascist bully," those are only words and this is the internet. Please hold your insults back and let the other person look like an idiot before insulting in return. In fact, you could just argue without personal attacks and logical transgressions. But what do I see for all 3 pages of the other thread? Personal attacks and logical fallacies in every single post. Not that I mind, only words, but also funny to read arguments like it as a reminder of what not to do. Nonetheless I try not to involve myself in such trashy conflicts. This should also explain to you why you've "never seen" me take part in debates, as claimed by your initial post.

If you would like to reply to this, please make it a PM. I will close any thread addressing this same issue henceforth.