#argumentative fallacies

Not exactly.

“Ad hominem” means “to the person” in Latin, and refers to an argumentative fallacy where the person making the argument is attacking the character of the person or people making the opposing argument in an attempt to undercut that argument rather than addressing the actual content of their argument.

This:

P1: I don’t think the relationship between Korra and Asami had any real romantic development, so that ending came out of nowhere.

P2: You’re just wearing hetero-lenses.  If you’d stop being heteronormative, you’d see there was plenty of development there!

...is an ad hominem, since it raises questions about the person’s character in order to impugn their credibility.

This, on the other hand:

P1: I don’t think the relationship between Korra and Asami had any real romantic development, so that ending came out of nowhere.

P2: Wow, you’re stupid.

...is probably just an insult, since it’s not even a fallacious attempt at making an argument anymore.

I compiled a list of argumentative DON'Ts. These are things you wish to avoid or otherwise wish you had kept your mouth shut. I have provided and explanation of each fallacy and also a simplification of each, for those who don't quite grasp the concept. I hope this can teach some people about what not to do when arguing and perhaps how to come to a logical conclusion.

  Ad Hominem Arguments- Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason. An argument based on the success or failure of the opposing individual(s) rather than the merit of their claim. It means you are appealing to one's prejudice, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's reasoning.

Don't dismiss what someone is saying just because of who they are. DON'T DO IT. You're tearing down what may be perfectly good reasoning because of something they may or may not have said or done in the past.

Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance- the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. Statement A is unproven, therefore statement not-A is true. Statement not-A is unproven, therefore statement A is true. If one argues that something does not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs. Consequently, if one argues that something exists because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.

If it's not a proven fact then don't argue for it or against it.DON'T DO IT. It's pointless, and often based in opinion.

Appeal to Authority- It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Don't argue about things that you know little to nothing about. If you don't have the qualification or evidence to back up your claim then there is no rational reason to accept it to be true. DON'T DO IT. And if you do have merit in the matter you may still be wrong, and it is up to someone else with merit to prove that.

False Dilemma Arguments- This fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious. This insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

Don't simplify something into a black-or-white, yes-or-no scenario. DON'T DO IT. There are a variety of factors that can play into each scenario. It's more complicated than yes or no.

Straw-Man Fallacy- By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Don't suggest someone means anything other than what they said. Don't put words into peoples mouths or meanings behind unspoken actions. DON'T DO IT.

Begging the Question- This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good. Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.

Your argument does not revolve around you being right. The conclusion is to be determined after all points are presented not during. Do not presume that there are not scenarios in which your justification does not hold true. DON'T DO IT.

Fallacy of Irrelevant Reason- Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that simply don’t bear on its truth. In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance don’t do this; the considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if they don’t have any value. Also called the red-herring fallacy, it often only distracts from the real issue.

Don't use tangents that are barely related to the subject as means to justify it. DON'T DO IT. Providing possible outcomes and scenarios that MAY happen in regards to something else that might happen have no merit.

You were warned.

------

It's interesting how social movements work. In some cases, they happen due to the relentless efforts of a group of people who understand that the norm is objectively unsuitable. In other cases, they happen due to the half-assed efforts of well-spoken idiots who can command the attention of a herd of sheep.

Isn't it interesting how things SJW's consider taboo and bigoted - things like biological gender binaries, privilege, and the innumerable forms of shaming - are considered the norm, but nobody has really said much about it in the real world until recently? Isn't it interesting that nobody outside of tumblr seems to care about these things? Isn't it interesting how you could take either of these topics and spin them in such a way that you could get people screaming in protest against them when they weren't even aware of them to begin with?

Browsing the notes of a particular biology-butchering post going around, I noticed a sickening number of people simply accepting the preachy faux-science as fact simply because the poster was relatively well-spoken. They responded to a short, quippy post about male and female organs - labels developed specifically for better scientific understanding, completely unrelated to sociological ones - with a veritable essay about the sociological implications of the <1% of people who don't fit into the "binary."

Responses consisted of "owned!" "bam!" "good work!" "bless this post!" "science!"

Just taking a wild guess, the thought process of these people was not to compare each point on a case by case basis - it was to read the words of one they already agreed with (due to similar outspoken people who appeared to have good intentions for social rights) and agree with it unconditionally, so long as nothing was obviously against their apparently malleable ideals.

"He sure posted more words than them! Owned!" "Bam! Lots of things that look like facts!" "Good work typing a lot in comparison!" "Bless this post for suiting my interests!" "I sure don't know jack shit about science!" 

I responded to it in the past, but I can neither find my old post nor do I care to sift through more of this plebian rabble to find it in the notes. So I'm going to respond to it again!

Male and female relate to gametes only. Male and female are defined on gametes if a species has two kinds, and one is smaller. The smaller one is male. Thus ends the biological definition of male and female.

Wrong, you textbook example for a fallacious argument!

The statement is essential correct from the small frame of reference he tricks you into looking at: the single cell that a human begins as. To that extent, yes! The only way you can tell the difference is that one chromosome's size. If you believe that this remains the only tangible difference between a male and a female towards the end of their development then you need to go back to the fourth grade.

Fourth graders don't have to worry about this shit. Sex ed starts next year!

That one difference that is implied as apparently COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO EVERYTHING IN BIOLOGY according to this faggot propels the entire process of the cell's growth into a male or female organism! Can mistakes happen? Most certainly! Is this considered normal? NO

You heard right! If you have two X chromosomes and you have a dick SORRY, YOU'RE NOT NORMAL. Does that make you a horrible abomination? Of course fucking not, it just means you aren't normal you sad sack of crap shut the fuck up and stop trying to make this about you

The argument posited by julian mckfuckface is that these abnormalities constitute a normal scientific categorization of gender (sex? I don't even know which term is PC anymore). This is despite the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of people are either male or female in this way. Scientists still refer to it as a disorder.

If you want to be sugar spice and everything fucking dandy about it though, let's not use the word 'disorder.' People take it offensively even though all it means is a condition that is statistically anomalous. Literally, not in order. There is literally no denying that this is a fact, can we carry on now?

Chromosomes and stuff are how evolution builds a body to hold male or female gametes in the context of human sexual dimorphism. Different species do chromosomes differently, or use something else like how warm the egg is. Gametes are fundamental, X/Y chromosomes are just mechanism. Different species don’t necessarily have only one kind of male-plan body or female-plan body.

Stop changing the subject, some people can't keep up!

...Or is that your plan? Wait, it totally is! Argumentative fallacy #whogivesafuck: using a completely irrelevant point that is tangentially related in some manner to drive a point. Doing this doesn't add to your argument, but it sure draws attention to it in a compelling but really fucking dumb way!

WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE SPECIES, YOUR EXAMPLES ARE INVALID.

Evolution doesn’t exactly build a body as “male” or “female” either.

evolution doeSN'T BUILD ANYTHING AT ALL THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS YOU ARE AN IMBECILE

There’s a lot of slippage in the process that constructs male-plan and female-plan bodies, and that’s clearly “deliberate” (evolution could tighten up the error checking, but has chosen not to). Complicated genders and complicated bodies seem to be an evolutionary advantage, in small numbers, such that there are enough cis straight people left over to breed.

Okay this is actually sad though I have to explain how evolution works.

Natural selection, the fundamental mechanism in the theory of evolution, does not literally target and eradicate a particular DNA combination like a fucking immunity system. It's called natural selection, not "deliberate, specific selection."

If I poured a bunch of red paint into a bucket of marbles and I told you to dig through it and remove all the marbles that had any spec of red on them within a time limit, would you be able to get rid of all of them? What if the bucket was fucking enormous? What if I kept adding red marbles, or putting back the ones you took out?

Would you ever finish? No!

This is where I got mad at this naive traipse through middle school biology. They not only don't understand how evolution works, taking it as a flawless mechanism that removes everything deemed evolutionary disadvantageous immediately, but NOBODY FUCKING POINTED IT OUT. EVERYONE AGREED WITH IT LIKE IT DIDN'T JUST VIOLATE EVERYTHING THEY EVER HEARD ABOUT EVOLUTION.

CHARLES DARWIN WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A WORD WITH YOU

HE SAYS FUCK YOU FOR MISINTERPRETING HIS LIFE'S WORK SO THAT YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT SEX

Now you have learned some biology. Time to learn some sociology.

OHHHH GOOOOD FOR YOU

YOU ACT LIKE YOU MADE A POINT BUT ALL YOU MANAGED TO DO WAS BE A COMPLETE FUCKWIT

"I'M A FUCKWIT AND SO CAN YOU" JULIAN MORRISON YELLED ATOP HIS LITERAL PILE OF BULL SHIT. THE CROWD GOES WILD. SCIENTISTS ARE CONFOUNDED. CHARLES DARWIN SPRINGS FORTH FROM HIS GRAVE AND UNLEASHES A DEADLY PLAGUE UNTO THE EARTH.

The latter half of his post isn't worth addressing because it all stems off the premise that he was right in the former half.