Question

...
Pistol

What kind of fallacies are these?

1. In a disagreement, one person constantly uses the failures of the other person's past to invalidate their points, even if it is unrelated to the disagreement at hand. 

2. In a debate or argument, one member of the argument overwhelms the other with repetitive and non stop points to try and push the other party in the disagreement to cease all objections (aka...."word beat them into submission"). 

asked on Wednesday, Apr 12, 2023 08:42:13 AM by Pistol

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
3

1. In a disagreement, one person constantly uses the failures of the other person's past to invalidate their points, even if it is unrelated to the disagreement at hand. 

Sounds like some type of ad hominem; the specific form would depend on the content of the statement. More generally, the irrelevant use of someone else's past to attack their present argument is a non sequitur.

 

2. In a debate or argument, one member of the argument overwhelms the other with repetitive and non stop points to try and push the other party in the disagreement to cease all objections (aka...."word beat them into submission"). 
 

This is a gish gallop.
answered on Wednesday, Apr 12, 2023 03:44:27 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

... but there is also argumentum ad nauseam in which the same point is repeated many times. In a Gish Gallop, many bullshit points are given all at once.

The example sounds more like a Gish Gallop with a little ad nauseam thrown in.

posted on Thursday, Apr 13, 2023 07:47:28 AM
...
0
Pistol writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

that makes alot of sense...thank you for the insight

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Apr 13, 2023 08:56:11 AM
...
skips777
0

#1) You've had all these failures therefore you're wrong could be a genetic fallacy or non sequitur.

#2) Nothing can be determined without knowing what "the talking points" are with regard to the subject. If they're relevant information where's the problem?

answered on Wednesday, Apr 12, 2023 01:06:12 PM by skips777

skips777 Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Dr. Richard
0

Ad hominem, gish gallop and nonsequitur. However, in a policy discussion (for example), past failures do flag to examine closely anything the person has to say. 

answered on Thursday, Apr 13, 2023 08:27:09 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments