Logical Fallacies

[C~G]

So in other words, if your arguements are logical, that means the other person's are logical fallacies? Otherwise you'd be agreeing.

Sorry, but that just not true. There are many logical ways of looking at an issue that lead to different conclutions.

Of course, sorry that I didn't point out this myself. But as long as the they are trying to solve an issue from the same perspective, then one of them has problems with logical fallacies.

For example a conflict of values: both people agree what the values are but disagree which is the more important value in the given situation.

Quite often debate about something leads to debate over values themselves which is the grey area that is extremely hard to debate and ultimately leads to logical fallacies from both sides since they cannot be justified with anything else by with values themselves (As you pointed out the value of certain values in particular time and/or place).

Therefore, if you are going to debate something, it is important to understand the oposition's point of view. If you don't, then you're not informed enough to be debating.

So people should discuss first about their values and then start debating?
Doesn't that lead to the inevitable outcome that there's nothing to debate since both sides agree to the inevitable truth in the absence of lack of logical fallacies?

Or are we agreeing here and our values are just different?

 

[cegman]

I don't know if debate is completely pointless. I think that CivGeneral is starting to become not so strongly against gay marriage.

P.S. Bumpage

 

[pboily]

I also enjoyed how the author often ends the discussion about a particular fallacy by making that particular fallacy.

If I had to bet on it, the most common fallacies in use on CFC are "Argument from the Negative" and the infamous "Straw Man"