Hmm great guide, but there is one thing your missing. When debating the person must stay calm. If you start to get angry and yell, ppl will not pay attention to your arguments, and even if your right, it will be meaningless. This guide won't work if the person doesn't debate calmly, or gets frustrated with the other sides opinions or words. Using your calmness against your opponents anger is also a great tactic, which I use in real life situations. I might not be a great debater, but using that tactic iv made ppl get frustrated and they make fools of themselves. Anyway ill look over this guide a few times, learn some new things, and maybe debate a little Good job

Hey Taylor, when is that fallacy list coming? I'm guessing you're either really busy or you just forgot about it, but it would be nice to know how far you've gotten on it and how long it might take you to complete it.

You can google fallacies if you want, and even google each one for in depth details on them and such.

Hmm great guide, but there is one thing your missing. When debating the person must stay calm. If you start to get angry and yell, ppl will not pay attention to your arguments, and even if your right, it will be meaningless. This guide won't work if the person doesn't debate calmly, or gets frustrated with the other sides opinions or words. Using your calmness against your opponents anger is also a great tactic, which I use in real life situations. I might not be a great debater, but using that tactic iv made ppl get frustrated and they make fools of themselves. Anyway ill look over this guide a few times, learn some new things, and maybe debate a little Good job


(...)
You can google fallacies if you want, and even google each one for in depth details on them and such.

Yeah, I could google it, but Taylor said he'd make a guide and he explains the fallacies really well. I'd prefer reading a guide by Taylor to something I find by googling.

Hey Taylor, when is that fallacy list coming? I'm guessing you're either really busy or you just forgot about it, but it would be nice to know how far you've gotten on it and how long it might take you to complete it.

I was really busy because I needed to set everything up for my travel.

Expect the guide to be ready within one week OR two months. If the former does not happen, the latter will.

(...)

I was really busy because I needed to set everything up for my travel.

Expect the guide to be ready within one week OR two months. If the former does not happen, the latter will.

Okay. Good luck on all the travel arrangements and stuff. There's no pressure on you to get the guide out in the next week. If you can't manage it I'm sure we'll all understand.

Hmm great guide, but there is one thing your missing. When debating the person must stay calm. If you start to get angry and yell, ppl will not pay attention to your arguments, and even if your right, it will be meaningless. This guide won't work if the person doesn't debate calmly, or gets frustrated with the other sides opinions or words. Using your calmness against your opponents anger is also a great tactic, which I use in real life situations. I might not be a great debater, but using that tactic iv made ppl get frustrated and they make fools of themselves. Anyway ill look over this guide a few times, learn some new things, and maybe debate a little Good job


(...)
You can google fallacies if you want, and even google each one for in depth details on them and such.

Well, Tsugaga, the same thing I told Ryouka would apply to this situation: since this topic is dealing with Logical Debating, I just introduced the logical tools one can use in order to show his/her points. Altering their state by screaming or not falls inside the psychological realm - the same way NLP does. Per se, keeping yourself calm is not a logical tool nor render someone's argument void because of such.

Thank you for your praise. =]

Well, Tsugaga, the same thing I told Ryouka would apply to this situation: since this topic is dealing with Logical Debating, I just introduced the logical tools one can use in order to show his/her points. Altering their state by screaming or not falls inside the psychological realm - the same way NLP does. Per se, keeping yourself calm is not a logical tool nor render somone's argument void because of such.

Thank you for your praise. =]

Ah yes I see, I even did that post after I read all of the other posts, I was tired Anyway yeah, great guide.

Great guide. I think logic should be more widely taught to people.

so i finally read it....,

few things:

1)I question your definition of struggle (rule 3)
2) I don't see "my life" to be a bad source, far from it sometimes you can only truly understand something if you have lived and experienced it. You shouldn't assume someone should be biased either from it.
3)What i would add onto rule 8 is you can see things frm their perspective and where there idea stems and depending on your purpose for the debate you will most likely come across holes in their foundations
4)for rule 9 i find it easiest to do that if you take their concept and apply it to somewhere (maybe just on a lower scale) that render it impotent ( sorry couldn't think of another word haha)
5) ON the bible paradox, i'm pretty sure that isn't one. The opening quotation seems to refer to worshipping kings e.t.c over "God" not in the literal sense.
6)"never rick roll people when debating" lmao you've totally given me an idea

Bonus rule: Stop worshipping Taylor as the god debater Get your own opinions!!!

overall it was a great insight, thank you

so i finally read it....,

few things:

1)I question your definition of struggle (rule 3)
2) I don't see "my life" to be a bad source, far from it sometimes you can only truly understand something if you have lived and experienced it. You shouldn't assume someone should be biased either from it.
3)What i would add onto rule 8 is you can see things frm their perspective and where there idea stems and depending on your purpose for the debate you will most likely come across holes in their foundations
4)for rule 9 i find it easiest to do that if you take their concept and apply it to somewhere (maybe just on a lower scale) that render it impotent ( sorry couldn't think of another word haha)
5) ON the bible paradox, i'm pretty sure that isn't one. The opening quotation seems to refer to worshipping kings e.t.c over "God" not in the literal sense.
6)"never rick roll people when debating" lmao you've totally given me an idea

Bonus rule: Stop worshipping Taylor as the god debater Get your own opinions!!!

overall it was a great insight, thank you

Your life is generally not a good source for a number of reasons. I heard a debate on the radio where people were calling in a saying that the majority of people on welfare are drug addicts who abuse the system because all the people they know on welfare are drug addicts. Just because you make an observation in your life does not mean it applies everywhere. If you say "abortion is wrong because I got an abortion and it made me sad," that is obviously flawed because it does not represent everyone. It shows that one person had a bad experience with abortion, not that everybody does.

About the bible paradox, there indeed is one. You see, it says not to trust mortal men when the people writing the bible are mortal men. The bible basically says right there not to trust it. It was written by mortal men, who are not to be trusted. If what was meant was not to worship kings than the bible would say "Don't worship kings above the Lord." Besides, the bible contradicts itself at numerous times. It at one point says that God is all powerful, and at another that he is not. Go here, look that page over, then tell me the bible is a good source to use. You wouldn't use any other fictional work as evidence in an argument, so why use the bible?

As far as thinking Taylor is a debating god, I don't think many people think that. We all respect him because he is very good at debating. We all still have our own opinions. We don't take on Taylor's opinions unless he convinces us through debating that they make more sense than our own. I've debated with Taylor before, so had Karab, so has Rukia. We're not always on the same side as he is. Sometimes we have the same opinion, sometimes we have different ones. Just because he is good at debating does not mean all just hop on his opinions, whatever they may be.

so i finally read it....,

few things:

1)I question your definition of struggle (rule 3)
2) I don't see "my life" to be a bad source, far from it sometimes you can only truly understand something if you have lived and experienced it. You shouldn't assume someone should be biased either from it.
3)What i would add onto rule 8 is you can see things frm their perspective and where there idea stems and depending on your purpose for the debate you will most likely come across holes in their foundations
4)for rule 9 i find it easiest to do that if you take their concept and apply it to somewhere (maybe just on a lower scale) that render it impotent ( sorry couldn't think of another word haha)
5) ON the bible paradox, i'm pretty sure that isn't one. The opening quotation seems to refer to worshipping kings e.t.c over "God" not in the literal sense.
6)"never rick roll people when debating" lmao you've totally given me an idea

Bonus rule: Stop worshipping Taylor as the god debater Get your own opinions!!!

overall it was a great insight, thank you

Those are interesting questionings, but I still think I can counter them all.

1) My definition is endorsed by an official dictionary's definition, although I used different words and expressions. According to Cambridge's Dictionary, struggle means "to use a lot of effort to defeat someone, prevent something, or achieve something", which brings all of the ideas I inputted into my definition, namely, the time consumption, the excess of the effort and the intention of avoiding a potentially harmful outcome.

2) Rurudo gave you a great explanation onto that one. To make it simpler: using one's life as an argument is a fallacious train of thought that would make you incurr in "Statistic Of Small Numbers", situation on which you use a handful examples based on a partial conjecture as a logical argument.

3) You have stated what I just said onto the rule number 8, although you did it with different words. "You can see things from their perspective" is exactly the meaning conveyed with "Questions can give you an in-depth of your fellows' minds", "you will most likely come across holes in their foundations" is exactly the idea brought when I state that their own logical flow can disprove the ideas showed by themselves.

4) If you do that, you would incurr in a fallacious train of thought. When reducting a situation to another realm, you might end with a Greedy Reduction fallacy, or a Slippery Slope, or a Post Hoc.... so, no, doing such cannot apply to a logical discussion.

5) Rurudo explained that one pretty well also. I do not think I have anything to add. Read his post - it is pretty much complete.

6) I will be looking onto your links from now on. xD

Bonus Rule: I do not think anyone here worships me as a Debating God. I actually tend to have several controversial thoughts, process that causes people to usually disagree with me instead of agreeing. I shall defend my points until I change my mind, and that's all. There is a phrase on a book that I read, which states the following: "the blind acceptance of the ideas is worse than the foolish questioning directed to them".

Think about it. =]

You see, it says not to trust mortal men when the people writing the bible are mortal men. The bible basically says right there not to trust it. It was written by mortal men, who are not to be trusted. If what was meant was not to worship kings than the bible would say "Don't worship kings above the Lord."

, Please don't insult my intelligence i know what it reads...I was simply suggesting that everyone is reading it in it's literal sense whereas i interpreted it with a different, underlying connotation...hold on i'll just give you an example:
You've all seen the film "300" right with the battle of thermopylae and the emperor XERXES. This is what i was getting at with that quote “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save”

Just because you make an observation in your life does not mean it applies everywhere. If you say "abortion is wrong because I got an abortion and it made me sad," that is obviously flawed because it does not represent everyone. It shows that one person had a bad experience with abortion, not that everybody does.

I believe the opening sentence is known as a spotlight fallacy . Again you have misunderstood what i was trying to express (I will be very specific next time )What i was trying to get at with that (and i won't go into it as i have already done on a different thread) you cannot truly understand the despair of poverty unless you have experienced it? Of course i do agree with you on the situation you proposed though

By the way, are you sure you have already given every fallacy?

@Below: Lmao, you do realize YOU are making mistakes? o,o "On itself" is not correct. It's either "In itself" or "per se". For that matter, you once wrote: "If you live on the Amazon forest" lol really? Maybe you meant "IN" the amazon forest. e.e

Ad Honinem: "When somebody consider" should be made into "When somebody is considering"...

Are you still just revising this guide to find an error of yours, Rukia? That's a tad too immature, you know. First of all, the time tense you proposed (present continuous) does not apply to the phrase expressed, grammatically speaking (the phrase expresses an hypothesis, therefore, you are not able to use present continuous, tense that is used to express actions that are currently happening). Secondly, you incorrectly named the place where that assumed mistake was - I used such structure on the "Appeal To Ignorance" subtopic, not on the Ad Hominen one, which was also incorrectly named as "Ad Honinen" by you on your correction. Thirdly, you even did the favor of misquoting me and introducing a basic grammar mistake by disrupting the subject-verb concordance (the correct form, as expressed through the test, is "when somebody CONSIDERS", for "somebody" acts as a singular third person substitute, thus, requiring the introduction of an S at the end of the verb).

Will that be all? Or do you have any other commentaries that would be, for once, useful and related to the thread, instead of trying to find mistakes on my structure just to prove yourself to the community?

P.S. - Another correction: the usage of the phrase "should be made into" is not supported by any grammatical rules whatsoever on the case you tried to apply the phrase. You are mistaking the meaning of "be made into" - to "be made into" implies the meaning of creating something from scratch based on a certain paradigm (e.g. - consider you have a famous celebrity and a doll based on such celebrity is crafted). Note there aren't any references to REFORM on itself.

With that said, I ask - how can I take the grammatical "advice" from someone that, within a handful of lines, commit several mistakes, and not only once, but throughout this whole discussion? Please, spare me from further comments, Rukia. That's enough. In case of reincidence, I will report such behavior as SPAM, for you are not giving any important data regarding the guide on itself. You are just writing pointless "corrections" that are incorrect on their essence just to prove yourself.

Grats Tay, you know about Wikipedia.

Thank you for NOT reading my guide. My text was originally written by me, with no intervention from Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course I do have my sources, specially with the regards about the Fallacy Categorization, however, the text is (as already stated, let me repeat because you can sometimes misread this all due to your innate condition) originally written, revised and redacted by myself.

So, again, thanks for not reading. My guide is most delighted by this opportunity of non-corruption. For one moment, I'd be afraid you'd read it all and maculate the page with your bias.

Also, reported for spam. After all, as far as I see, you did not bring anything new to the discussion. There is a reason this guide is stickied, you know... and it's not due to arbitrariety.