8/4/2019 Legal Arg and Debate Fallacies

1/2

A. Fallacies of RelevanceArgumentum ad baculum (Appeal To Force)

Committed when a debater ignores the real question and appeals to force rather than reason

Example:The traditional religious threat is that one will burn in Hell

Argumentum ad hominem (Argument To The Man)

Attacking the person, persons character, personality or belief instead of attacking his argument.

A common form is an attack on sincerity:

Example: How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?

There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening:

Example: In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem.

Attack on the other person's intelligence:

Example: If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view.

Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument.

Argumentum ad populum (Argument By Emotive Language - Appeal To The People)

Using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds. Many emotions

can be useful: anger, spite, envy, condescension, and so on.Example:

A person on trial for a crime of theft pleaded for mercy on the ground that he had force to steal to provide

food for his starving family, instead of presenting evidence in his defense.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal To False Authority)

This fallacy is committed when the debater contends that what he alleges is valid because it is supported by

a person who commands respect and reverence.

For example: Famous physicist John Taylor studied Uri Geller extensively and found no evidence of trickery

or fraud in his feats." Taylor was not qualified to detect trickery or fraud of the kind used by stage

magicians.Taylor later admitted Geller had tricked him, but he apparently had not figured out how.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's

feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam Burden Of Proof:

The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer

claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case. It is a case of shifting

of burden of proof.

Example:

I maintain that there are ghosts, because you cannot prove that there are no ghosts.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Non Sequitur:

Something that just does not follow. The debater draws a conclusion from a premise without showing a validconnection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the conclusion.

There are two classes of non-sequitur. The simple non-sequiturand the false cause (post hoc, ergo proper

hoc).

Simple non sequitur

Arises when a debater draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection

between the cause and effect.

Example:

Pedro is the most clever student in the U-university; therefore, he should be the granted basketball

scholarship.

False Cause

This fallacy arises when the debater assumes that since one occurrence precedes another in point of time,

that event is the cause of the one that follows. (Sequence is not causation.)

Example:

Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons; or

Every time I will attend my music lessons, my basketball team sure to win.

The sun goes down because we've turned on the street lights.

Petitio principia (begging the question)

Reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of the assumptions. This fallacy is often called petitio

principii.

Example:

8/4/2019 Legal Arg and Debate Fallacies

2/2

We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.)

"The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall?)

There are two types of this fallacy, one isAssumptio non-probata and the other one is Circulus in probando.

Assumptio non-probata arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as the means of proving

the assumption.

Example:

All persons who have killed another must be sentenced to death.

(this premise has to be proved first)

Mr. A has killed another person.

(either Mr. A committed a crime or had killed only for self defense)

Therefore: Mr. A must be sentenced to death.

(self defense cannot be sentenced to death, therefore a Fallacy)

Circulus in probando arises when the arguer uses two unproved propositions, each to establish the validity

of the other.

Example:

Juan answer is correct, because it is the same as the answer of Pablo.

(The answer maybe both wrong)

Complex question

Unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should beaccepted or rejected on its own merits.

For example:

Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?

B. Fallacies of AmbiguityFallacy of equivocation

using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. For example, sometimes

"Free software" costs nothing, and sometimes it is without restrictions. Some examples:

"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there."

All trees have bark.

All dogs bark.

Therefore, all dogs are trees.

Fallacy of amphiboly

This fallacy arises on account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which give rise to

miscomprehension.

Example: The notorious criminal had been arrested by the policeman who robbed the bank.