Argument Algorithms !!

jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Let's look at the styles of arguments often employed here.
You've heard of syllogisms. And you have certainly seen the following
patterns displayed here:

The Case of the Good Cause:
No GOOD CAUSE will submit to the issue of shared resources. Shared resources is another topic. Not relevant. Not germane.

YOU'RE A Bad Unfeeling Person if you are against it.

But could it be that no GOOD CAUSE is an island? Don't all GOOD CAUSES compete with each other for the same resources? It is the difference between a child who sees no connection and to an adult that needs to prioritize and accept in their maturity such compromise is never perfect.

EXCUSES they yell.

The case of Fix Everything Don't Selectively Fix.

If you take on one nation threatening genocide, you're supposed to
take on all nations threatening genocide. If you attack one country
breaking the nuclear proliferation barrier, you're suppose to take on all
countries threatening the proliferation barrier. If you attack one
dictator then you must attack all dictators. OR DO NOTHING AT ALL.
All or Nothing ---or you're a hypocrite.

If we would use this argument on attacking one disease, but not all
at the same time with the same enthusiasm and resources then we
should do nothing at all ???

Like the fallacy of the Good Cause so too is this argument of all or
nothing oblivious about SHARED RESOURCES.


--------------------------------------

There are more argument patterns such as these. Such as
the conspiratist arguments, the populist arguments, the elitist
arguments, the class warfare arguments...
 
M

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
acquiescence to the "right-way" the "right-headed arguments presented...of course...:)
 
Albertabound

Albertabound

Electoral Member
Sep 2, 2006
555
2
18
If you attack one
dictator then you must attack all dictators. OR DO NOTHING AT ALL.
All or Nothing ---or you're a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


North Korea has a dictator, I don't see any invasions going on there. If you are going to invade only the countries you THINK you can conquer, state it as so, not because it is a dictatorship country.
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Here's another argument pattern:

The Case of the NOW.

As if NOW is an island, not to be compared to what was avoided
or what could be.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

jimmoyer wrote:
Had Saddam been left alone you would have seen even more support for him than ever before.

As a David against Goliath, you would have seen him continue to finance Palestinian suicide bombers, continue to build his palaces, continue to provide substandard education and infrastructure for his people while ruling over the shi-ites and his own sunni people with fear and reprisal. And then the big propaganda move would be to join Hugo Chavez.

The old status quo would have continued, festering for another 10 years until his death and then you'd see what you are seeing NOW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Ocean Breeze responded with:

there is NO way to make such a definitive statement about what might have been........as there is NO way of knowing what would have happened.

-----------------------------------------------------

I pose the alternative possibility ONLY because it is a PRACTICAL MATTER leaders of the world have to make all the time.

Sure there is NO WAY, but we people do it all the time, and so must our leaders.

It is always good to compare what we have NOW with what we MIGHT have avoided.

This leads to the THEORY OF NOW and its fallacy is that it lives on an island unconnected with things that might have been or things that were avoided.

It gives us a perspective greater than those who only look at NOW.



The CASE OF THE GOOD CAUSE.

The case of Fix it all or nothing.

All arguments that rely on the issue being an island, uncomparable to shared resources, uncomparable
to what might have been avoided, or what might be accomplished.
 
Last edited:
AndyF

AndyF

Electoral Member
Jan 5, 2007
384
7
18
Ont
jimmoyer:

There's also Ad Hominum, Post Hoc,Ergo Propter, false dichotomy,non sequitur, etc,etc.

I think 80% of bad debating is Ad Hominum, but it should remebered these forums are not really professional ones are basically it's everyone for himeself, but even that is...........errrrr...................debatable.

AndyF
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
To recap, here's the list of the kinds of argument fallacies
you often see on any subject:


-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The case of the NOW. The present is treated as an island unrelated to what might have been or what was avoided. Not comparing what you have now with
what might have been avoided is a bad habit to develop.

2. The Case of the Good Cause. This too is treated as an island unrelated to all the other good causes that compete for our attention. And so prioritizing is often demonized. Children don't have the perspective to prioritize, but adults must, in this world of finite resources.

3. If you fix one problem YOU MUST FIX ALL THE OTHERS TOO.
For example if you go after one dictator then why are you leaving other dictators alone ?
Do all of them or none of them. This doesn't work in disease fighting. Or does it?
If you attack one disease then it is unfair to all those other people with different diseases not to get the same attention.

4. Lack of a rebuttal is proof of a good argument.
You often see someone patting themselves on the back because they think they stumped
you because you didn't come back with a challenging rebuttal. You'll see that person takes
lack of a rebuttal as proof positive of their own argument. Instead of putting the
burden on themselves to verify the truth, they put that burden on their opposition.

5. You could only possibly think that if you were ignorant of the facts.
How many times have you seen that argument ? I have often seen many people armed with the facts and totally mis-interpret them or get the wrong conclusions.

-----------------------
I have left out all the classic fallacies like ad hominen, syllogisms, etcetera.
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Here's one more ARGUMENT FALLACY to add to the list.

Dexter Sinister recently mentioned it in the "Hate Hannity" thread.

Fallacy of Composition. Take the far left or far right and make that to represent
the whole group.

--------------------------recapping the other fallacial hee hee args below---------------------------------



To recap, here's the list of the kinds of argument fallacies
you often see on any subject:


-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The case of the NOW. The present is treated as an island unrelated to what might have been or what was avoided. Not comparing what you have now with
what might have been avoided is a bad habit to develop.

2. The Case of the Good Cause. This too is treated as an island unrelated to all the other good causes that compete for our attention. And so prioritizing is often demonized. Children don't have the perspective to prioritize, but adults must, in this world of finite resources.

3. If you fix one problem YOU MUST FIX ALL THE OTHERS TOO.
For example if you go after one dictator then why are you leaving other dictators alone ?
Do all of them or none of them. This doesn't work in disease fighting. Or does it?
If you attack one disease then it is unfair to all those other people with different diseases not to get the same attention.

4. Lack of a rebuttal is proof of a good argument.
You often see someone patting themselves on the back because they think they stumped
you because you didn't come back with a challenging rebuttal. You'll see that person takes
lack of a rebuttal as proof positive of their own argument. Instead of putting the
burden on themselves to verify the truth, they put that burden on their opposition.

5. You could only possibly think that if you were ignorant of the facts.
How many times have you seen that argument ? I have often seen many people armed with the facts and totally mis-interpret them or get the wrong conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom