Someones logical fallacies may be their interpretation of what they alone think is logical. To another those fallacies may seem irrelevant or illogical. I think it is great to be logical however, sometimes ones heart overrides what might seem logical. Example would be a person trapped in a burning car. Logic would say it is too dangerous to even attempt a rescue. Logic would say nothing I can do. It is what it is. Someone's heart would say give it a try, a life is so important. I think there needs to be a balance between logical and heartfelt to find the common ground. I believe if this game followed this example there would be much happier players.
Hello <3 I miss seeing you around more <3
I agree wholeheartedly - that's why there's three facets of an argument - Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - meaning ethics, emotions, and logic respectively. Emotions and ethics definitely have a place in a debate - but they are not mutually exclusive things. That is to say, you cannot use only one of them, or only two of them, you must use all three in combination. If your argument (using the term meaning "statement", not necessarily an "argument") is filled with emotion, but commits logical fallacies in its treatment of the topic, it is not as strong as if you were able to word it differently to not commit the fallacy. For example, sometimes just putting "I think ___ because ___" can get rid of some fallacies. Or instead of just saying "This person shouldn't talk about this because", say "I believe this persons points are wrong because ___".
There's also a difference between talking about someone's opinion and talking about facts/logic. Logic is universal, where opinion is not. As you said, logic will always say that it's too dangerous for a random passerby to intervene in a burning car situation. The passerby cannot know if the car is close to exploding. However, the opinion of the passerby may be that they should attempt a rescue, because since they have no way of knowing if the car is close to exploding, they can assume it will not be any more likely to explode by the time they've intervened than it is right then, and since it hasn't exploded right then, it shouldn't while they intervene. Yes, that's a small logical fallacy, but at least most of the statement is logical. It also has the Ethos of the ethical reasons behind intervening, as well as the pathos, or emotional argument for intervening. As such, that is a sound argument to make: "The car has not exploded yet, and as such I should intervene."
There's also (again) a difference between logic and train of thought. Logic is to trains of thought what statistics is to inferencing - trains of thought must be somewhat logical, but do not necessarily fail to contain fallacies. Logic itself, on the other hand, must not contain fallacies. Likewise, inferences are not always based strictly on statistics, and generally should contain extrapolation/thoughts, but the statistical data itself cannot be argued with and must be true (barring any statistical fallacies, that's a different story :P).
-Whospar