|
This is a nice thread, with a very handy list of references.
I don't use ad hominem, and I consider it an admission that another party knows they have been proven wrong when they resort to it. It's also interesting to see one person accuse another of an ad hominem attack when said attack consisted of refuting an argument (or opinion) with factual references.
Straw men are annoying to have to point out.
Godwin is not even a fallacy, but many people try to use it as if it were. Someone else discredited it quite well in this thread.
Hypocrisy, while indirectly referenced, is the most annoying of all, and I disagree with excluding it from the ranks of fallacies. Someone mentioned Clinton earlier, and in this context, very rightly so.
Clinton allowed Loral to sell satellite (weapons) technology to China, and arranged a deal that provides the company 250 million ANNUALLY, but he was a faultless president. Self-appointed crusaders for justice will ignore him, while tirelessly posting that Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. Ken Lay is a Bush "crony," but it's dishonest, inappropriate, and illogical to point out the size of the contributions Enron made to Democrats. That kind of thing.
Such hypocritical "debate" is so common that I tend to avoid entering into discussions in which I know the posters will indulge in it. Especially when someone posts multiple screens full of "references," when these references have been inappropriately edited, or worse yet, contradict the poster's argument, thereby indicating that the poster did not read the references he shoveled into the thread.
Of course, there are also the unfounded blanket statements of opinion by someone who, when challenged, will demand that YOU, not he, provide references to the contrary. A "poisoning of the well" is certain to occur should you provide those references.
The list goes on, but I won't.
|