CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Logical fallacies are not the same as gaps in knowledge. Greater knowledge and understanding will never make an insult of a person serve as a rebuttal against their argument. Circular reasoning, contradiction, straw man, and any other fallacy cannot be validated by enlightened thinking as they are all the product of irrationality and confusion.
No, I’m not saying that human beings are fallacies. I’m saying logical fallacies exist. Fallacies are not the same as gaps in knowledge, as your description suggests. Fallacies are errors of thought that contradict reason.
While some kind of enlightenment or discovery could conceivably give us something like perpetual motion, no enlightenment can make the illogical into the logical. Fallacies exist and they are not merely human boundaries.
No, I’m not saying that human beings are fallacies. I’m saying logical fallacies exist. Fallacies are not the same as gaps in knowledge, as your description suggests. Fallacies are errors of thought that contradict reason.
Like arguing you can have infinite wealth when there are finite resources.
Wealth and resources are not synonymous. Seriously, just read a fucking book on the subject
Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions. This excludes the core meaning as held in the originating old English word weal, which is from an Indo-European word stem. In this larger understanding of wealth, an individual, community, region or country that possesses an abundance of such possessions or resources to the benefit of the common good is known as wealthy.
If all of your wealth is in a coin worth $100,000 because it is the only one of its kind, then you melt it into the puddle of silver it’s made of, your wealth has just decreased $100,000 to $15.58 while your material resources are unchanged.
Could you please provide some evidence or at least an example for this?
Otherwise I don't really care what you're saying, remember people aren't fallacies :)
If a discovered knowledge gave us perpetual motion, it would be our perception of an illogical fallacy, turned into a logical reality, through knowledge, hence a fallacy is just the limit to our human boundaries, so far.
I gave examples in my first post, but that seems insufficient.
As I said, Circular reasoning, contradiction, straw man, and any other fallacy cannot be validated by enlightened thinking as they are all the product of irrationality and confusion.
If we create a perpetual motion machine, we will have accomplished what appears now to be a physical impossibility. New knowledge could show us that it is not a physical impossibility. If we are currently wrong due to lack of knowledge, we are not necessarily committing a fallacy.
You can be wrong without being fallacious, but you cannot be fallacious without being wrong (in at least one way).
"As I said, Circular reasoning, contradiction, straw man, and any other fallacy cannot be validated by enlightened thinking as they are all the product of irrationality and confusion."
Only deemed so by our limited knowledge.
Fallacies are not evidence of our intellectual progress, they are evidence of our intellectual boundaries.
"If we are currently wrong due to lack of knowledge, we are not necessarily committing a fallacy"
Exactly, fallacies don't exist, we're just 'wrong' because we aren't as smart as we think we are.
Logical fallacies are the only few true paradoxes to exist, paradoxes in thinking, and only exist due to minds and thought not being perfectly consistent 24/7. Logical fallacies are not meant to be proven wrong, they are trains of thought that don't justify any convictions. It is unjustified conviction, invalid reasoning, A.K.A. illogic.
The bandwagon fallacy, that many people believing something makes it right is simply bad reasoning as conformity does not necessarily indicate truth, only a compulsion to believe. While one could hypothesize a situation that appears to be exempt to this rule only by over thinking. Like placing a bunch of people inside a simulation that conforms to people's beliefs. Not even this would prove that truth is dictated by conformity because it would be forced. The more logical explanation is that you are co-existing to a malleable simulation.
Logical fallacies are the acknowledgement of flaws in reasoning, not pre-existing phenomena that has yet to be understood.
The chicken and the egg isn't a flaw in thinking or an failed rationalisation, it is two separate parts of information that we struggle to reconcile. Not a true paradox.
The bandwagon fallacy, the erroneous argument that quantity of supporting people indicates truth value of made assertion, is not two pieces of seemingly irreconcilable information but a train of thought that fails to actually explain anything.