3 Common Internet Debate Fallacies

When arguing with people on the internet, it can be frustrating to have to deconstruct lies and manipulations. What can be even more frustrating is having to deal with logical fallacies that shift the focus away from the topic or turn the discussion away from an argument and into personal attacks.

I am going to go over three common internet debate fallacies to help you recognize, call out, and redirect the conversation when they arise.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

One popular internet debate fallacy is the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy takes place when someone attacks the opponent personally instead of discussing the merits of ideas presented. This is meant to try to cast doubt on the credibility or personhood of the opponent rather than focus on the actual points made. What is key to recognizing this fallacy is noting that the ad hominem fallacy is an attempt to suggest that someone is wrong because of the substance of the personal attack.

For example, I may argue that most gun owners are not out to murder others because the proportional number of peaceful gun owners to people who use guns to murder is over 99.99% according to the FBI crime statistics.

If someone in response says that I am wrong because I am a stupid gun lobby pawn, that would be a personal attack against me that does not address the validity of my claims. Instead of analyzing the information and thinking about whether it is true or false, the attacking opponent has chosen to make generalizations about me and call me names.

When you see this take place, make sure to call it out and request that the other person address the claims instead of making personal attacks.

Strawman

A second popular internet debate fallacy is the strawman fallacy. The strawman fallacy takes place where someone attempts to misrepresent or fabricate another’s argument to make it easier to strike down.

For example, I may argue that guns in private hands save many more lives than they take as can be noted by looking at the studies performed by the CDC and Florida State University Professor Emeritus Gary Kleck.

Someone in response may say, “Oh, so you just want children to have guns and shoot them however and wherever they wish, huh?”

Of course, I never said that children should have unbridled access to guns and be able to shoot them wherever or however they please. This statement is putting out an argument I never made nor even intimated in my initial claim. The goal of the opponent here is to try to change what I said in a manner to make it appear as if I am arguing for something that they can more readily challenge and criticize instead of addressing the specific studies I mentioned.

Moving the Goal Post (aka Special Pleading)

A third popular internet debate fallacy is called, “Moving the Goal Post.” Moving the goal post takes place often where a debate opponent has been shown that their claim is wrong or flawed, and so they attempt to adjust their language and change their framing to a more favorable light to hide the fact that they were just shown to be wrong or misleading.

For example, if someone claimed to me that an AR ban is needed because they are the greatest death threat to Americans, I could counter-claim that not only are rifles used less than handguns in murder, but that, as among other instruments, they fall behind knives, blunt objects, and physical attacks when it comes to murder.

In response, the opponent may attempt to move the goal post by saying, “Well, they are still a big threat to children at schools!”

Notice how they moved away from their original post to a new claim instead of admitting that they were wrong about the comparative outcomes from murder instruments.

When someone refuses to admit that they were mistaken or did not realize that their initial claim was wrong or misguided, note that you’re engaging with a sophist – someone who is attempting to appear as if they are using reason and evidence, but is really downplaying that they are manipulating the conversation when it doesn’t go as they wished for.

If you keep these three logical fallacies in mind, ad hominems, strawmen, and moved goal posts, you’ll be much better able to direct conversations in a productive manner that focuses on the validity of the claims and evidence presented.

Make sure to watch my other video, 3 Foundations to Forming an Argument, if you have not already, so that you continue building your argumentative skills.

Learn more about my work at http://thepholosopher.com

Get a "Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies" and/or a 24 Cognitive Biases poster (as seen in my Phorensics episodes ^^): https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

3 Foundations to Forming an Argument: