People who don't understand logical fallacies

#2
I don't see why not. This was a game originally made for a younger audience, one who might not be yet educated on the complete list of fallacies. Yes, then maybe they are too young for the debate section. But maybe they just want to see if other people share their opinion or not, and can potentially get educated in a proper correct way. (Even if the topic is on logical fallacies!)
 

Lost

Well-Known Member
#4
If people use fallacies then point them out and help educate them about how their argument lacks validity because of it. They shouldn't be denied access if they are truly trying to better the debate or try post their opinions, if you point out their mistakes they can reword it or come back with stronger arguments but to ban people over using fallacies isn't right.

The only people who should be revoked access are the people who can't be respectful, or attack people, or go off the topic of debates with their own agendas. The debates section is a privilege not a right and I would hope those who break rules within the section get warned and then removed.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#5
If people use fallacies then point them out and help educate them about how their argument lacks validity because of it. They shouldn't be denied access if they are truly trying to better the debate or try post their opinions, if you point out their mistakes they can reword it or come back with stronger arguments but to ban people over using fallacies isn't right.

The only people who should be revoked access are the people who can't be respectful, or attack people, or go off the topic of debates with their own agendas. The debates section is a privilege not a right and I would hope those who break rules within the section get warned and then removed.
The problem becomes those who won't reword their argument when it's pointed out, but instead attack the person pointing it out.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#8
You must have 2 years high school debate club experience before being permitted to join the myvmk debates section
Good one.

In all reality, I just wanted to know what people thought should happen if people are going to personalize debates when they get challenged on their statements. Should they be removed if they're unwilling to actually debate, and only seek to "win" by attacking people who don't agree?
 

Oreo

LIKE NOBODY'S BIDNEHHZ
#11
Excluding people would mean staff would pick and choose who and who couldn't participate, which could get very messy. Instead, there's a great thing called the report button that can always be utilized when you think someone isn't being civil and/or should be ejected from the group. :thumbsup:
 
#12
The Debates section isn't just for debates...

http://forums.myvmk.com/threads/current-issues-with-myvmk-may-2015.49946/page-2#post-429407
We don't have rants/complaints any longer, and debates comes the closest to filling that need. If it makes it easier to understand, imagine that the name of this section of the forums is actually "Debates / Serious Stuff". I can change the title of the section if that would make it seem like a better fit for this topic.
http://forums.myvmk.com/threads/current-issues-with-myvmk-may-2015.49946/#post-428168
That being said, the debates group is one of the most flexible groups on the forums in terms of what you are allowed to say, and aligns the closest with the once alive Rants and Complaints. This group allows the discussion of highly controversial topics, which is clearly a category all the drama amongst the game staff falls into.
 

CandyCars

Well-Known Member
#13
Imo who cares if you have had a professional class about definitions. Let people voice their opinions! That's in my mind what a debate is - two sides voicing their opinion.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#15
I had to google what fallacy meant
Biggest problem with our school system - teaches what to think not how to think. No offense to you myth <3[DOUBLEPOST=1433521802][/DOUBLEPOST]
Imo who cares if you have had a professional class about definitions. Let people voice their opinions! That's in my mind what a debate is - two sides voicing their opinion.
A debate is the arguing of opinions. Which necessarily invites arguments about why one side's opinion is illogical. That's why the definitions are important, because you can't argue against an opinion without proving is illogical. Ann opinion is personal - thus an opinion cannot be "wrong" to have - only illogical. Again, that's why fallacies are defined - so that people can more easily communicate why an opinion is illogical.

By the way, I've actually not had a speech or debate class. I learned what I know about logic from my English classes in high school and college.
 

Littlebelle

Smile and the world smiles with you
#16
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.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#17
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
 

Littlebelle

Smile and the world smiles with you
#18
You are an extremely intelligent person. Just reading that made me think I was in college :) I appreciate your insight. However I do not think everyone thinks this way. So it makes debating the way you do extremely difficult. It is also a learned skill. For some it does come naturally but that is very few. So to include those of all intellectual abilities one may need to make the point a little easier to understand. That said anyone that attacks a person not a point can always learn the difference.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#20
Yet it's also possible to use fallacies to prove that a claim is illogical. That's the only purpose of fallacies, @Andre Dia , to prove that a claim is illogical.

Thus, saying "because you committed a fallacy, you are wrong" is in itself a fallacy.

Yet saying "Your statement is a fallacy, thus it is illogical" is not only not a fallacy, but is correct.
 
Top