I really want to know if the aphorism is fallacious as KEN claimed, I also want to know the names of all the fallacies committed by both(if any). Did KEN commit any fallacy by trying to debunk a universal truth?

I stumbled upon this argument which seems to contain some degree of flawed reasoning and I decided to share it with "fallacyophites" for enlightenment.

BEN: Practice makes perfect.

KEN: I don't understand, what do you mean?

BEN: What I'm saying is that constant and consistent practicing makes one perfect.

KEN: I don't agree with you on that because no amount of practice can make one perfect in anything; one can achieve or claim expertise in a field but not perfection, for perfection is unattainable.

BEN: The aphorism is older than you so you can't dismiss it unless you are trying to say that you are wiser than the person that brought it, it is a universal truth accepted by all.

KEN: The fact that the aphorism is older than me and has existed for ages doesn't change the fact that it's fallacious, it would be more logical if it says "constant practicing makes one an expert"

BEN: The aphorism is older than you so you can't dismiss it unless you are trying to say that you are wiser than the person that brought it, it is a universal truth accepted by all.

Classic argument from age :

One can argue that KEN was being pedantic by arguing the concept of philosophical perfect rather than the common use of the term. Not really a fallacy though.

BEN: The aphorism is older than you so you can't dismiss it unless you are trying to say that you are wiser than the person that brought it, it is a universal truth accepted by all.

That's chronological snobbery

The overall premise is fundamentally wrong. Mediocre people can practice for decades and still remain mediocre. There was a fellow in Venice who travelled up and own the Strip with an electric guitar and a tinny amplifier on roller skates for years and years on end. After thirty or forty years he never improved. You can watch him in movies, TV shows and Youtube. He is the best example that practice does not make perfect. Only perfecting practice can pave the way to perfection. (See Gladwell's The Tipping Point)

1) An argument from Age, i.e. Ad Hominem
2) Appeal to Common Folk

On a point of usage and for the sake of clarity, arguments can be sound or fallacious and assertions, propositions, premisses and even aphorisms can be true or false.

“Practise makes perfect” is false. Perfection, by definition, cannot be achieved by creatures liable to error and mistake. Though, presumably, God does everything perfectly without any need to practise. Practise* may indeed improve one’s practice,** but to hold that this is true of all agents in all contexts with all endeavours is false. The age of the aphorism and the number of people who accept that it is true are completely irrelevant to determining its truth. To think that they are is about as silly as claiming that any proposition that has been regularly asserted for more than 3,000 years is, by that fact, true; or that a proposition is true in those cases where over 50% of the human population hold it to be true.

* verb
** noun
British spelling is sometimes wonderful.

BEN: "Practice makes perfect".
me: "Perfect practice makes perfect."
KEN: I don't agree with [either of] you on that because no amount of practice can make one perfect in anything; one can achieve or claim expertise in a field but not perfection, for perfection is unattainable. The fallacy here is that of the unobtainable goal (best is enemy of the good), and Bo Bennet captured this as a matter of pedantics.

All areas have practice elements, and performance elements. When performance is to be improved, practice can help improve it. I think that's all the common aphorism is intended to mean. When Franklin said "a stitch in time saves nine", he was not to be criticized b/c sometimes it only takes eight, or noting that "time" is not stitchable.

Aphorisms, to me, are expressions of wisdom, short enough to be quickly recalled, to encourage useful behavior, not to be philosophically dissected.

There is disagreement over the definition of “perfect”: perfection as an unattainable platonic ideal and perfect as having achieved mastery. This is kind of like equivocation but it is not because one person is not changing the definition of perfection from one meaning to the next. It’s a disagreement or a misunderstanding.