Debate: Fallacies

Front 1

fallacy of composition

Back 1

assuming what is true for part is true for whole

Front 2

Fallacy of division

Back 2

what is true for whole is true for part

Front 3

Hasty generalization

Back 3

when the example is not representative of the group

Front 4

Common cause fallacy

Back 4

assuming that x cause y ( z causes either or both)

Front 5

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Back 5

after the fact therefore before the fact

Front 6

fallacy of equivocation

Back 6

language has multiple meanings

Front 7

circularity

Back 7

uses the definition to prove the claim

Front 8

appeal to force

Back 8

do what I say or else

Front 9

appeal to ignorance

Back 9

premise is true b/c it hasn't been proven false

Front 10

Red Herring

Back 10

distracts audience from the issue in question

Front 11

Non Sequitur "it does not follow"

Back 11

This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.).

Front 12

begging the question

Back 12

This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation.

The main thing to remember about this fallacy is that the term "begging the question" has a very specific meaning. It is common to hear debaters saying things like, "They say pornography should be legal because it is a form of free expression. But this begs the question of what free expression means." This is a misuse of terminology. Something may inspire or motivate us to ask a particular question without begging the question. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. If somebody said, "The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it's free expression, it shouldn't be banned," that would be begging the question.

Front 13

slippery slope

Back 13

A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between them.

Front 14

Ad Hominym

Back 14

attacking the person- not their opinion