To avoid being childish when debating!

When writing or discussing any issue, we must firmly grasp one immutable rule: prioritize argumentation over flowery language to mislead the reader or listener.

Argumentation is presenting or explaining the reasons behind a statement. You probably know that when making an argument, it must be extremely strong and persuasive. But are you worried that you're not a logical thinker? Then how can you make a strong argument? Yes, learning how to make a good argument is a long and continuous process, but it's not impossible. And of course, anyone can "become more logical" with practice.

An argument consists of premises that are logically arranged to support a conclusion.

There are four ways you can make your arguments as powerful as Thor:

1. Use good premises. A good premise is one that has a valid reason for you to believe; it is both true and relevant to the issue being discussed.

2. Ensure that these premises are focused and strongly support the conclusion.

3. Consider whether you have addressed the most important and relevant aspects of the problem.

4. Absolutely do not make any statements that are so strong or profound that you cannot prove or support them.

Additionally, you should present all your ideas in an organized manner so that the reader can understand them. If you are having difficulty developing your argument, check to see if you are making any logical fallacies. Sometimes, an argument may seem obvious to you, but it may not be true in essence.

Let me tell you upfront, the purpose of this article is not to offer a way to win any argument, but simply to point out weak arguments so you can avoid them. These examples are for illustrative purposes only – they haven't been formally researched, and you shouldn't use them as evidence in any text.

So what is a fallacy?

Fallacies are flaws that weaken arguments, or in other words, a fallacy is an argument that lacks rigor or a false assumption that proves nothing. We can learn to identify fallacies by looking for them in our own writings or those of others. Gradually, this will help you strengthen your ability to evaluate arguments through sight and sound. We need to note and recognize two important aspects of fallacies:

First, fallacious arguments are very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the average reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and many other sources.

Secondly, in reality, it is sometimes difficult to assess whether an argument is fallacious. Some are obvious, consistently blatant, while others are ambiguous and difficult to identify due to insufficient understanding. Therefore, to reiterate, the goal of this article is not to provide a way for you to "label" arguments as fallacious, but simply to help you seriously examine your own arguments.

1. Hasty generalizations

"My friend said her boyfriend is a jerk, and my boyfriend is just as bad. See! All men are jerks."

In this case, the experience of the two individuals is insufficient to draw a conclusion.

This is an example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. This fallacy relies on a sample size that is not large enough or atypical enough to make assumptions about the entire group or many cases. For example, stereotypes about people such as "poor people are usually mean" or "rich people are usually dishonest" are fairly common examples of the fallacy of hasty generalization.

To avoid this type of fallacy, we need to determine what kind of “model” we are using. Are you relying on the opinions or experiences of a few people? Or are you relying on your own experience in a few situations? Then you need to choose (1) to find more evidence or (2) to draw a more “modest” conclusion.

2. The fallacy of ignoring the main point.

The fallacy of ignoring the premise means "The premises are one thing, the conclusion is another," meaning the premises support a different conclusion than the original one.

For example: “The severity of the punishment must match the severity of the crime. However, there is a paradox: drunk drivers are only fined. Meanwhile, this is considered an extremely serious crime because it can kill innocent people. Therefore, the death penalty should be applied to those who drive while intoxicated.”

The argument might support conclusions such as "The problem of drunk driving needs to be dealt with severely," but would not support the claim that the death penalty should be specifically applied to this crime.

To avoid this fallacy, we need to separate the premises from the conclusion. Consider the premises, thinking about what conclusion the reader will draw after reading them. Then, look at the conclusion, thinking about what evidence would support it. And whether the evidence you initially presented supports the conclusion. The fallacy of ignoring the argument is common in cases involving extreme decisions. Therefore, be especially careful when making any major statements.

3. The Post-Hoc Fallacy

This fallacy takes its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which means “what happens after an action is a result of that action.” Simply put, it means that because B comes after A, A causes B. Of course, sometimes a real event after causes another event. For example, if I register for a course and then my name appears on the list, that is indeed the first event causing the next.

But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not actually related in terms of cause and effect.

For example: “Large corporations are constantly laying off employees, and then the rate of property theft increases. Those large corporations must take responsibility for the increase in crime.” Layoffs may be one factor leading to an increase in crime, but the above argument doesn't show us that one thing causes the other.

To avoid the post-hoc fallacy, the arguer needs to provide an explanation and evidence of how the process of firing employees led to a higher crime rate. This is also what you should do to avoid this fallacy. If you claim that A caused B, you must explain how A caused B, rather than simply stating that A happened first and then B, thus linking the two events.