943 Debate Fallacies

<p>It doesn't take long in an online debate before someone calls you names, or tries to attack you personally; that's called an Ad Hominem attack. Though amateurish, it's an effective tactic because most people will try and defend themselves, and that's a hole they can't climb out of; best to ignore it. Also, your opponent will often try to misrepresent your position, “so you're saying you kill babies;” that's called a “straw man” because they've replaced you with their caricature of you. Other named debating fallacies are Special Pleading, Confusion of Correlation and Causation, Anecdotal Evidence & Appeal to Authority. Here's a list of common debate fallacies that aren't specifically named, so I did.</p> <p> </p> <p>There's “Casting Suspicion;” implying that your opponent's pov is tainted in some way; and a person using a false pretext concealing their real intentions is known as “Trolling.” A “Disingenuous” debater is not candid nor sincere. “Accusations” are claiming the opponent has done something wrong, putting them on the defensive. “Dismissive” is insinuating that the person or argument is unworthy of consideration. “Bullying” is ridicule, belittlement & scorn. “Ganging Up” is when multiple opponents target you, and “Brigading” is when they're organized. Some opponents are intentionally “Obtuse,” repeating a false or illogical narrative despite proof otherwise. Often people assume “Facts Not In Evidence” or have a “Presumption” that the central premise has already been established. The worst is when you get “Stalked;” a person making derogatory comments after everything you post. And you probably already know it, but I'll repeat Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."</p>