Encyclopedia of Fallacies

[tEN]

This thread is meant to highlight some common rhetorical fallacies and explain what they are, how to recognize them, and how to deal with them. I wasn't sure exactly which forum this belongs in, so this seemed like the right place to put it. If a kindly mod would like to move and/or sticky it, that would be appreciated. If anyone would like to post a fallacy that they believe I missed, go right ahead and use the template at the bottom of this post. I'll be along to threadmark it shortly.

The first thing I would like to do is explain what this thread is not. It is not in any way a set of rules, nor is it intended to be one. It is not infallible. It is not meant to guide policy or in any way be official. All that this is, is a spotter's guide of sorts. A quick easy reference so that when you see an argument which looks off, you can come here and understand why it looks off before you decide how to respond. Alternately, if somebody accuses you of using a fallacy, you can come here, read up on what it is, and hopefully argue better in the future.

Fallacy Name
AKA: various other names
What it is: A brief description of what is done in the fallacy.
What is wrong: An explanation of why this is a fallacy.
What it is not: A brief overview of behavior which may appear similar but is not this fallacy.
What to do: One suggestion on how to engage with this fallacy without simply calling the person out on using the fallacy or calling the mods.

 

[tEN]

Fallacy Fallacy
AKA: Argument From Fallacy, Stopped Clock Rejection
What it is: In this fallacy, one party asserts that because the other party has used a fallacy, they are automatically wrong.
What is wrong: It is possible to be correct in one's conclusion while having reached it from a false premise.
What it is not: Simply mentioning that a fallacy has been used is not itself a fallacy. The fallacy comes when one uses the use of a fallacy as one's entire argument. Pointing out that a fallacy has been used and then addressing the conclusion with full validity is in fact a way of helping one's partner to debate in a superior manner in the future.
What to do: If you are correct, there is doubtlessly another way to reach your correct answer. Rewrite your argument without the identified fallacy, or explain why you did not in fact use one.

 

[tEN]

Defeat by Detail
AKA: Linguist's Lament, Context Obfuscation, Argument from Pedantry
What it is: In this fallacy, one party reduces the other party's argument to small enough chunks that the points lose their overall meaning. In the most extreme versions of this, one might rebut all individual words in a sentence.
What is wrong: Words carry meaning but context is also important. The way a sentence is constructed, one can easily change meaning from something as simple as a punctuation adjustment. Breaking down an argument too far loses that meaning, which is problematic when the overall meaning is the actual point of discussion.
What it is not: Inline Responses are a technique with a long and storied history including editorial adjustments, email discussions regarding important technical decisions or lists, and more, with the purpose of addressing particular details with precision when that precision is itself important. The purpose here is to reduce the possibility of confusion, where defeat by detail relies on creating confusion about what the point is. Chances are if you ever handed somebody a printed out double spaced first draft, they handed you back inline replies in pen. So long as all original meaning from the argument being replied to is kept, one is performing an inline reply and not engaging in defeat by detail.
What to do: The thing to keep in mind is that in almost all situations each response in a defeat by detail is irrelevant to the actual discussion. Identify those objections which remain relevant to the overall point, and engage with those. Politely stand back up those points which are not in fact knocked down, and invite one's debate partner to try again.

 

[tEN]

Proof by Verbosity
AKA: Gish Gallop, Shotgun Argumentation, Proof by Intimidation
What it is: This fallacy is when one attempts to replace quality of arguments with a quantity of arguments, often to prevent their opponent from responding to every argument, and thereby leave some number of those arguments "in play".
What is wrong: It does not matter how many times you are wrong if you are wrong every time.
What it is not: People who have had the same argument many times and feel strongly about an issue often have many reasons why they are correct, collected over years and years of discussion. Combining both quantity and quality into a single essay is in fact a good way to start a discussion, by providing a number of points to engage with to various people who each may have their own particular insight.
What to do: Garbage arguments are generally a trap to bog one down and waste time. One of the simplest ways to deal with this kind of rhetoric is to open by remarking that nearly all points raised are garbage not worthy of time, but a few are, and to quote those points which do possess value or legitimacy and engage only with those. Be clear that you will not have your time wasted, but that you are willing to engage with valid arguments.