The n00bs guide to debating fundies! Part one: Logical Fallacies

[casanovakreg]

isn't every argument ultimately circular? How do you prove induction without using induction? How do you justify communication without using it? I don't know. I like learnlogicalfallacies

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@casanovakreg Naming a couple of nonsensical paradoxes doesn't make all arguments circular. Example: You: "The sky is green!" Me: "No, it isn't." You: "Yes, it is." Me: *points at the sky* Me: "No, it isn't" You: "Okay!" See, that was a real, unparadoxical example of an argument. Almost all arguments are like that, more or less. "...prove induction..." You can't, because the method to prove induction *is* using induction. How can you prove anything without the proof?

[dementedsnake]

It was a decent video, but I had to mute it halfway through. Not bad though, I'll watch the next one.

[fractal420]

@dementedsnake Not a prodigy fan huh? :)

[Silkspine]

This is GOLD! I discovered this as a "related video". I'm gonna have to give it a shout out.

[IAmTheWarbringer]

Incase you guys haven't noticed, one of the most effective ways of debating creationists is pointing out logical falacies. Yes, this is a video about logical fallacies that can be applied to more than just debating creationists, but this is more of an "If you want to debate creationists effectively, do A, B, and C".

[jesuskopp]

This video is blatantly hypocritical in that almost every example is against Xtians.

It puts all Xtians in the same box, and is there for commiting a ad hominem.

Thanks for educating us.

[Zenthor2112]

Not counting youtube debates, I have spoke to around 20 theist since breaking free of christian bondage. 10 said I was going to hell. 9 gave the illogical arguments you talked about in the video plus other absurdities that made me want to quickly end the conversation. So, unless I am just unlucky, I can expect only 1 in 20 theist to be rational.

[fractal420]

Yep that sounds about right.

[steelhamster]

Good video, will go watch part 2

[Izoto593]

i think it was a great video!!!!

<--oddball

[fractal420]

A slur, an insult, derogative? Yes. Ad hominem? No. What specific claim am I attempting to refute by using it? If you have a problem with the words I choose I really don't have anything to say other than get over it. Hit me with a real argument and I'll gladly refute it without logical fallacies :)

For the record I've yet to hear an argument from a fundamentalist regarding religion or proofs of a divine being that wasn't riddled with fallacies.

[Matur1n]

So you decided to use ad hominem yourself? Belittle them by calling them "fundies" so that you don't have to think about what they say? Is this list the things you plan to use against them, or instead are you saying they use the same tactics you display right there in your title?

[fractal420]

Should have paid closer attention to the video. I'm not dismissing an argument by attacking the character, there is no argument to attack. I can say fundie all I want while still debunking any valid argument brought forth. Besides fundie is just short for fundamentalist. Let me give an example anyways "There is no evidence for Adam and Eve Moron!" not an ad hominem... "You're too big of a moron to get that there is no Adam and Eve." is an ad hominem.

[darkmojojojo]

Actually, an ad hominem applies to the case where the person committing the fallacy uses the it as a manner of disproving a claim.

Simply calling someone a "fundie" is not a ad hominem (it's just name calling). However, saying someone is wrong because they are a "fundie" would be considered an ad hominem.

[Matur1n]

So you are trying to say that your title doesn't imply disbelief in the fundamentalist arguments? It looks to me like the tilte is dismissing their arguments, implying all they use are logical fallacies. Not just namecalling.

"There is no evidence for Adam and Eve Moron!" not an ad hominem... "You're too big of a moron to get that there is no Adam and Eve." is an ad hominem"

Your title is more like the 2nd example. Because they are fundies they use logical fallacies. That's ad hominem.

[darkmojojojo]

I don't see that implication in the title "The n00bs guide to debating fundies! Part one: Logical Fallacies" The title could have just as easily have been "The n00bs guide to debating Holocaust Deniers! Part one: Logical Fallacies". The whole point of the video is to explain logical fallacies, it just happens to apply to debating fundies in particular.

[Matur1n]

I don't know if Holocause Deniers is an insult to them or something they wear as a proud label. But "fundies" is a religious slur. It is in the Wiki list of religious slurs and every major dictionary I have seen designates it as pejorative. The way it is used in the title is an ad hominem attack on fundamentalists, implying they don't understand/unfairly use logical fallacies because they are the pejorative term. It is blatantly hypocritical, particularly given the subject of the video.

[darkmojojojo]

Anyone can use logical fallacies. In fact, you are currently committing a red herring fallacy. Whether or not "fundie" is a religious slur is of no relevance at all to any content of the video and you've been using it to avoid actually replying to any of the content of the video.

[Matur1n]

The first big point in the video is about ad hominems. I am just pointing out the video uses the same tactics it accuses the fundamentalist of using. That's pretty exactly relevant if anything is.

[Obversity]

@Matur1n

If it is in someone's nature to commit fallacies regularly in debate, it is now, by your assertion, ad hominem to accuse them of it?

I can recall plenty of occasions in which these fallacies have been committed by fundamentalists and their interlocutors alike. That he chose to target the 'fundies' more vehemently could merely be a representation of where he observes these mistakes most prevalently, and thus where his preferences lie.

[Matur1n]

"If it is in someone's nature to commit fallacies regularly in debate, it is now, by your assertion, ad hominem to accuse them of it?"

Nature? As if all fundamentalists have similar natures. A pretty varied group, at least as varied as atheists.

"ad hominem to accuse them of it"

Point out defective arguments, just don't use the exact same tactics you are complaining about to do it. Demonizing "fundies" is exactly the same kind of ad hominem attack the video is accusing them of doing.

[Obversity]

@Matur1n

There was an "if" there; I was not equivocating anyone or anything, merely illustrating the flaw.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Matur1n]

I am just amazed that someone would do a video, in large part expalining what an ad hominem attack is and condemning it, with a reasonably sophisticated knowledge of it, then launch their own ad hominem attack in the same video.

It is like writing a high school newspaper article condemning the rampant cheating they see going on at their school, with a long diatribe against it, then wind up the article with "here are the answers to the Chemistry Exam that Mr. Perkins is giving tomorrow."

[fractal420]

Which one of these two statements are ad hom?

A. You cannot argue for the bible you are a fundie!

B. The bible cannot be proven to be the word of god you fundie!

Only one is... Do you know the difference?

[skud9999]

Both are.

Neither adress the real issue which is the Bible being provable or not.

A. You cannot argue for the bible you are a fundie!

Circumstantial Ad Hominem-

1.Person A makes claim X.

2.Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.

3.Therefore claim X is false.

You dismiss the argument based on the man not his argument.

B. The bible cannot be proven to be the word of god you fundie!

Burdon of proof/Ad Hominem

[Obversity]

@Matur1n

Could you cite examples from the video that you believe to be ad hominem, please? Doesn't have to be exhaustive, just a quick clue as to the source of your accusations.

[Matur1n]

You don't have to get past the title to see it. It uses a pejorative term "fundies" to try to discredit the person, to accuse the person on the other side as being objectionable personally, before even allowing their arguments to even be addressed. It is a personal attack employed in place of argumentation, trying to focus on objectionable traits of the person, to distract from points of argument. Don't even try to suggest that "fundies" isn't a pejorative term.

[fractal420]

When the argument comes i'll address it ad hom free. Yes 'fundies' is a pejorative I suppose if someone is one. I use it mostly in the title for humor, it wouldn't be different if I had used homophobe instead.

You're an old friend ;) Hit me with whatcha got and I promise no fallacies.

[Matur1n]

Your video would be more convincing if it wasn't so hypocritical right off the bat, using ad hominem attacks against the opposing side all while you decry the opposing sides use of ad hominem.

[Obversity]

@Matur1n

Insult =/= ad hominem.

It's only classifies as fallacious if the insult is used specifically to discredit an argument.

For example, me calling you an idiot is not ad hominem. If I said, however, that "you're an idiot so your argument is (thus) incorrect", I would be guilty.

[Matur1n]

"It's only classifies as fallacious if the insult is used specifically to discredit an argument.

It was used to discredit the "fundies" arguments. It wasn't just to make them feel bad or insult them. It was to convince the viewer that the "fundies" arguments were typically invalid.

[boorens18]

@Matur1n thats cuz fundies arguments ARE invalid...Thats kinda the point...its not an ad hominem to state a fact just because someone doesnt like it.

[Matur1n]

If they put forward a defective argument, point that out. Don't use ad hominem's to attack the person instead of the argument. This is basic logic. the video makes a big deal of explaining exactly that, then falls into the same trap it is complaining about.

[boorens18]

@Matur1n actually you dont seem to understand what an ad hominem is....insulting someone is not an ad homenim. Its when u use insults to attempt to counter a point that it is a logical fallacy

[Matur1n]

I do understand an ad hominem. It is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. That is exactly what we have here. the term isn't used to simply insult fundamentalists. It is used to discredit their arguments, their side in the debate, by linking them to negative and pejorative stereotypes rather than arguing against the premise itself.

[Matur1n]

If some random Youtuber did it, it wouldn't be such a surprise. But someone actually doing a video that seems geared toward trying to raise the level of debate on Youtube by explaining ad hominem's and other logical fallacies, it is quite astounding that the video sponsor would resort to ad hominem's himself. Even if you were right and he was just throwing out pejorative stereotyping insults at fundamentalists, that isn't much better and doesn't fit at all with what the video seems made to do.

[boorens18]

@Matur1n give me the line that specifically is an ad hominem

[Matur1n]

The title itself is an ad hominem. It doesn't do you any good to try to make a case that it is simply trying to be intentionally insulting or pejorative. That is just as bad for someone who is doing a video pleading for us to argue with logic.

[boorens18]

@Matur1n again no...you dont seem to really understand the difference between an ad hominem and an insult. There IS a difference. The title for one, is not an argument against fundies, nor is the title itself the response...so how could it be a logical fallacy?

An ad hominem attempting to acomplish one of those goals otherwise its just an insult. Insults are going to happen get use to it, then get on topic.

[Matur1n]

Even if it is only an intentional insult, that is just as problematic for someone doing a video that advocates elevating YT arguments to a more logical basis.

You are wrong about ad hominem's having to be in a response . In a debate, the speaker going 1st can still use an ad hominem against the other debater by anticipating future arguments. That is exactly what occurs here. It implies we should not listen to fundamentalists because of who they are, not addressing their arguments themselves.

[boorens18]

@Matur1n Quite frankly, if you address arguments logically...and they still refuse to face it, then sometimes an insult is the only thing someone will respond to. Why respect someones position if they refuse to admit possibly being wrong? Such as fundamentalists, who brag of perfect knowledge from god. By definition, they cant ever admit anything is wrong in it. So if you are trying to argue that no one should ever be ridiculed for their position, you are sheltering the ridiculous.

[Matur1n]

"Quite frankly ...an insult is the only thing someone will respond to. "

In a word "no". If you are going to stoop to hurl insults you might as well waive a flag admitting your logic isn't convincing. Frankly, the people on YT who do the most insults are those who come out with what they think is a brilliant statement, only to have someone completely destroy it with logic. That is who you are grouping yourself with when you abandon logic for insults. When you do it in your opening title ...

[boorens18]

@Matur1n k so according to you, if u insult someone....you automatically have no logic behind your position....regardless of whether or not u address their points....doesnt matter. Sorry but I dont take advice on how to argue from a person who cant tell the difference between an ad hominem and an insult

[fractal420]

@matur1n

Aren't you ready to move past this and begin discussing your religious beliefs?