A list of cliches and logical fallacies in debates?

Question

Has anyone ever compiled a list of all the cliches people use when they're LOSING an argument? 

For the past couple of weeks I've been wanting to compile a list of all the things people do when they FAIL to argue the point or refute your statement. Does anyone have one? If so where? Or do you have your own list?

Here's some of the ones I've noticed. 
1. Strawman : Misconstruing your opponents argument to something much weaker that you then attack and declare that you defeated what they said.
2. Shaming tactic : Try to apply your opponents statements to something personal/shameful that has nothing to do with the initial argument. Ex : "Well you wouldn't do that to your sister/brother would you?"
3. Deflecting : Point out something wrong that someone else does to lessen the wrong you've done. Ex : "Well they're fat too. What about them?"
4. Asymmetrical maneuvering : Lessen the statement that you made and over exaggerate the statement the other person made. 
5. Cards : Race card, Woman card, Feminist card, Religion card, Culture card etc.
6. Create a new phobia : Literally come up with a brand new phobia. And then diagnose the person you're arguing with with that brand new phobia. 
Ex : A."I think we're over producing certain technologies"
B. "You just hate technology. You have TECHNOphobia"
7. Family issues assumptions : Make an assumption that the person has a problem with family member.
8. Hurt accusations : "You must have been hurt by _______ person in the past" 
9. Question sexuality : Yes literally question their gender identity or sexuality when you have nothing else against them. 
These are a few I've noticed. Notice any others? :-D I get this feeling there's up to about 30 of them. 

btw there's a Stefan Molynuex video where he actually created a list of logical fallacies in debates but I can't seem to find it. :-(

CeLeSTiaLFuRY · Accepted Answer

10. Two-Year Old Reversion: Completly ignore any legitemate information or arguement that is made if it doesn't prove your arguement right. (Nah-nah-nah! I can't hear you!)
11. Denial: When somebody calls you out on something, you swear it never happened. Ex: A. "But you said '_________'." B. "No I didn't."
12. Question intellegence: Cause if they disagree with you, they must be an idiot. (Steven Hawking is a big fan of this one)
13. Hypocrytical expectancy: Expect somebody else to answer an inquiry, but when they turn the question around on you, make it out to be unreasonable of them. (Used in almost every theological debate, by both sides)
14. Absense of Evidence Falacy: You don't have the evidence to prove it, so it's clearly false. (Scientific method dictates that you have to obtain proof that something is false before it can be considered false, otherwise it's just up in the air).
15. Opinion/Fact Differenciation: Treat an opinion as fact or when somebody is expressing a blatent opinion, act like they are trying to present it as fact.
16. Generalisation Attack: When somebody makes a generalised statement, use it to make them seem like a bad/unintellegent person.
17. Avoidance: Completely avoid the question/topic by going off on some unrelated tangent then acting like you won the arguement.
18. Ambusing: Intentionally ask a question that requires preperation, that the other party clearly had no time to prepare for.
19. Bully Pullpit: When individuals of social authority (ie. teachers, preachers, TV/Radio personallities, etc.) act like experts outside their area of expertise and use their authority to justify their statements. (for example: a math teacher acting like they are an expert in politics, just because they are a teacher.)

That's all I've got for now.
PS. I've never understood how making a joke or being uncomfortable about something makes you phobic or it. I always thought that phobias made you enter a panic, not attempt humor or instilling minor discomfort.

Anonymous · Answer

No, he did no longer ought to be quite so impolite, lol, yet what he says is clever. there are a number of stuff which we are able to adventure, devoid of seeing them. And there are a number of distinctive strategies wherein something could be obtrusive. we can not see the air we breath, yet we are able to coach that it exists, and we are able to word the outcomes it has on different issues. theory is something that we no longer only adventure, yet that we are able to, to a pair quantity administration. you additionally can word innovations interest, and chemical reactions while human beings think of roughly or seem at countless issues, our innovations sends alerts to our physique each and all the time, each and each time we lots as blink. The words i'm typing practice that the innovations i'm having are genuine. while human beings say they adventure god, there's no evidence that what they're experiencing is something extra that theory/mind's eye. there's no evidence to coach that there are outcomes that take place, that may only be led to by potential of a god, there is only human beings's very own theory of their very own innovations and emotions:)

Trending News

A list of cliches and logical fallacies in debates?

2 Answers