hi all.

I've noticed a lot of these occurring lately and then noticed this handy little chart to help us all up our debate skillz.

Most prominently, i notice a lack of proper understanding of the strawman.

please take note and feel free to post examples you may notice...or should you be in a discussion, and think a fallacy is occurring, point it out here for analysis.

thanks for reading, 

prof

Anecdotal evidence. Tisk tisk.

The "genetic" is a plague in the religious threads.

yeah i agree. the fallacy fallacy is probably one of the worst offenders here besides the strawman. I suppose it can't be helped when there is a lot of hardheadedness. Obstinancy only serves to make someone reject the opposed ideas outright, and twist or stonewall actual points that are being made. This typically results in tu cocque, ie, where the majority of our flaming comes from.

also, the middle ground, texas sharpshooter, and the anecdote.

@happyd
as is the appeal to nature.
if god wants us to procreate, why would he make gays.
That train of thought violates the appeal to nature and the appeal to authority.
As well as the strawman.

oh man kowen you just gave me a great idea!
fallacy mods!
they don't have any real power, but we can make tags and such and people can "report" fallacies with pms!

Let's make a group!

Special pleading, I was talking about the posters in the thread, not the topic they were discussing.

I saw a lot of folks ridicule other posters or demean their ideas because of their background (religious or non-religious).

I don't think the appeal to authority works that way.

Appeal to authority is what many people will do when they say:

"The scientists say so, therefore it's true", rather than actually debating the validity of a claim. I agree it can also be applied to "God said so, therefore it's true".

The appeal to nature can be used on either side: "Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore it is false", and "Homosexuality is natural, therefore it is correct."  However, when it comes to the topic of morals, it all depends on what your foundations are for the debate and what constitutes morality. As such the "appeal to nature" rule may be overruled by the rules of morality as agreed to prior to debate, or as argued during debate.

EDIT: Actually, you just used the "Appeal to nature" fallacy right in this post. Mind you, I don't agree with it in the context of morals personally.

A large portion of discussions about "Casual" gamers are based on Ad-Hominem attacks, Appeal to Authorities, with Black-or-White assumptions on the nature of gamers (Casual or Hardcore), and use the Texas Sharpshooter and No-True-Scotsman to support their point.