Skepticism 102: How to Argue Wrong

You don't know how to argue properly.

That's not just directed at you, but also most people you know... most people you don't know, and even me. It's a fundamental flaw of humanity that we tend not to know how to present a convincing argument. The reason why, well, I covered that in Part 1 of this retrospectively titled Student Skeptic series, please read that if you haven't, as it is a prerequisite reading for this continuing lesson.

Now, I recognize that "argument" is a bit of a loaded word, since an argument can be a reasonable presentation of ideas... and it can also be a shouting match between two people. I looked up the meaning in the dictionary, and apparently this has always been the case. Whilst "argue" comes from the Latin "arguere" meaning the act of proving, reasoning or (literally) illuminating, it could also be used to mean blaming, indicting or accusing, and one dictionary claimed it was frequentatively used to mean babble or chatter. So, it's always had this antagonistic, perhaps even dismissive aspect.
That could be because the word is flawed, or it could be indicative of just how poor humans are at arguing that the definition of "presenting evidence" is tainted with accusation, but that's pure speculation on my part, I'm not an etymologist...

It's part of the reason why, I don't actually like the word "argument", I prefer "debate", since debate is a formal, public discussion of a question or subject, so as to discuss opposing views. Even an unstructured debate is, in principle at least, more open to opposing views. But, it's flawed, since debates are usually an open forum... so, for the sake of clarity, let's call a spade a spade, and I'll be using the word "argument" for any form of disagreement, be it debate or debacle.

See, the fundamental flaw with arguing is two-fold. Firstly, when we argue we tend to rely on things which are, to put it lightly, completely irrelevant. Our mood at the time, our flawed understanding, the status of ourselves or our opponents. Human social interaction is fraught with extraneous details. This is a beautiful thing, the many layers of empathy, experience, expression and emotion... but when it comes to matters of fact and basis in reality, truth can get lost in the shuffle.
If you want to argue why a particular position is right, or true, you really ought to focus on the proven facts of the case at hand.
Secondly, arguing is fundamentally flawed because... well, people are convinced by bad arguments. As I said, human social interaction is multi-faceted, and although it makes no sense to fall for an argument because someone says "Of course the Moon is made of cheese, what are you, stupid?", but humans can be nonsensical sometimes.

So, I think that's the first thing you need to understand with this lesson. Whilst I am here to teach you about the flaws in argument, so that you can have a better means of identifying truth, that doesn't mean you're going to become some irrefutable debatant. We're not here to convince the unwashed masses... I'm here to teach you how to be less wrong, and that means teaching you not only how to present your position, but also how to be receptive when someone else presents a better position.
Yes, I recognize I'm basically teaching you how to argue with yourself, but it's a useful skill when you're trying to find out what is most likely true, and what is most likely false.

Now, I find that the best way to teach you how to argue well is to show you how not to argue, and go from there. First thing first, when making your case, you should try to avoid fallacy. What is Fallacy? Well, I'm glad you asked because The Word of the Day is: FALLACY

Fallacy /falləsee/ n. 1. A deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. A misleading or unsound argument. 3. Deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness. 4. Logic. Any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. 5. Obsolete. Deception.

Since we're talking about skepticism and argumentation, the most relevant of these definitions is "4.", the definition in regards to logic. That said, the main definitions are also accurate—as all fallacy is misleading, deceptive or false; it's ultimately a failure of reason.
There are many ways to reason incorrectly, but for ease of understanding, many of them have actually been identified and named. The following list is intended to be comprehensive, and if you see where it is lacking, please let me know, but this list may be incomplete. Many fallacies are known by their Latin names, because philosophers are nerds, but I will list them by their English name...

A COMPREHENSIVE* LIST OF FALLACIES

Anecdotal Evidence: trying to use a personal or isolated event as proof for a general or widespread claim.
(Latin: "mea historia"; also known as "unscientific evidence" or a "nonrepresentative sample")

Appeal to Ambiguity: using words with unclear or indefinite meanings to try to prove one's claim.
(Latin: "argumentum ad ambiguitas" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of imprecise language, but includes more specific instances, such as: Amphiboly [or Syntactic Ambiguity], Continuum Fallacy [or Fallacy of the Beard, related: Loki's Wager], Equivocation [or Lying by Omission], Etymological Fallacy, Insinuation [or Innuendo], Intensional Fallacy, Misleading Accent [Latin: "accentus"], Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy [or Debate and Switch], Polysemy, Principle of Explosion [Latin: "ex falso quodlibet"] & Reification [or Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness])

Appeal to Authority: claiming that the celebrity or intellect of a claimant alone is enough to substantiate a claim.
(Latin: "argumentum ad auctoritum" or "argumentum ad verecundium"; also known as "argument from authority" or "false attribution"; related to the "courtier's reply")

Appeal to Character: attacking an opponent's character or personal traits, as proof against their claims.
(Latin: "argumentum ad hominem"; also known as a "personal attack" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of character denigration, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to Motive, Poisoning the Well, Tone Policing & the Traitorous Critic Fallacy [Latin: "ergo decedo"] - see also Genetic Fallacy)

Appeal to Emotion: trying to convince through feeling, instead of a valid argumentation.
(Latin: "argumentum ad adfectum" or "argumentum ad passiones" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of emotional reasoning, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to Anxiety [or Think of the Children], Appeal to Flattery, Appeal to Guilt , Appeal to Hope [or Wishful Thinking], Appeal to Pity [or the Galileo Argument], Appeal to Rage [or Appeal to Justice] & Appeal to Spite -)

Appeal to Frustration: presenting several claims or comments, overwhelming one's opponent, rather than allowing them to focus on a single debate topic.
(Latin: "argumentum ad nauseum"; also known as "filibuster" or the "gish gallop")

Appeal to Hypocrisy: responding to criticism by claiming one's opponent is also guilty.
(Latin: "tu quoque"; also known as "whataboutism" or the "you too defence")

Appeal to Incredulity: claiming a claim is wrong because it is difficult for you to understand.
(Latin: "argumentum ad incredulitas"; also known as "argument from ignorance", "appeal to common sense", the "divine fallacy", the "moralistic fallacy" or the "psychologist's fallacy")

Appeal to Moderation: assuming that a compromise between opposing viewpoints is the most valid or fair.
(Latin: "argumentum ad moderatio"; also known as "false compromise" or "fallacy of the mean". )

Appeal to Nature: arguing that something is good, ideal, just, true or valid because it is natural.
(Latin: "argumentum ad naturam"; also known as "look at the trees")

Appeal to Popularity: claiming something is true, or valid, because it is common, popular or widespread.
(Latin: "argumentum ad populum"; also known as "bandwagon fallacy" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of preferential popularity, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to Commonality [Latin "ad numeram"], Appeal to Novelty [Latin: "ad novitam"] & Appeal to Tradition [Latin: "ad antiquitatem"])

Appeal to Possibility: Claiming that something is probable, because it is possible.
(Latin: "possibiliter ergo probabiliter"; also known as "appeal to probability" - see also Slippery Slope)

Appeal to Purity: claiming that a valid criticism only applies to invalid forms of one's claim. (Latin: "argumentum ad puritas"; also known as "no true scotsman" - see also Special Pleading)

Appeal to Repetition: repeating the same claim over and over, wearing down an opponent's patience or stamina, rather than logic.
(Latin: "argumentum ad infinitum"; also known as "going in circles" or "proof by assertion" - see also Appeal to Incredulity)

Appeal to Ridicule: asserting that because a claim is counter-intuitive, unusual or humorous, it is invalid.
(Latin: "argumentum ad absurdo" or "argumentum ad lapidum"; also known as "appeal to mockery", "appeal to the stone" or "the horse laugh")

Appeal to Violence: threatening harm to your opponent, to convince them to your claims, rather than logic.
(Latin: "argumentum ad baculum"; also known as "appeal to force" or "argument from the stick")

Bare Assertion: a claim presented without support, evidence or reason; or an opinion expressed as though it were a fact.
(Latin: "ipse dixit")

Begging the Question: a claim whose premises assert the conclusion, rather than support it.
(Latin: "petitio principii"; also known as "assuming the conclusion"; related to "Kafkatrapping" - see also Circular Reasoning)

Burden of Disproof: asserting that an unsubstantiated claim is true, until it has been disproven.
(Latin: "onus probandi"; also known as "russell's teapot" or "shifting the burden of proof")

Causal Fallacy: asserting or assuming the cause for an effect, without proof of causality.
(Latin: "non causa pro causa" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of causal misattribution, but includes more specific instances, such as: Causal Reductionism [or Fallacy of the Single Cause], Gambler's Fallacy [or the Monte Carlo Problem], Magical Thinking, One-Way Causality [or Ignoring Bidirectional Causation], Regression Fallacy [or the Historical Fallacy] Reverse Causality [or Wrong Direction], Spurious Correlation [Latin: "post hoc ergo propter hoc"] & Third-Cause Fallacy [or Ignoring a Common Cause])

Circular Reasoning: making a claim which includes its unproven conclusion within its own premise.
(Latin: "circulus in probandi"; also known as a "round argument")

Composition Fallacy: claiming that a quality of one part must be equally shared by the whole.
(Latin: "totum pro parte" or "modo hoc"; also known as "false conjunction" or the "package-deal fallacy" - see also Division Fallacy)

Division Fallacy: claiming that a quality of the whole must be equally shared by one part.
(Latin: "pars pro toto"; also known as "ecological fallacy" - see also Composition Fallacy)

Fallacy Fallacy: assuming that a claim is wrong because it's claimant used a fallacy.
(Latin: "argumentum ad logicam"; also known as "argument from fallacy" - see also Genetic Fallacy)

False Dichotomy: claiming that just two (or very few) options exist, ignoring other, valid options.
(Latin: "falsus dilemma"; also known as "black-and-white thinking", the "nirvana fallacy" or the "perfect solution fallacy"; related to "false analogy")

Formal Fallacy: When the conclusion of a claim does not logically follow from the premises.
(Latin: "non sequitur" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of illogical structure, but includes more specific instances, such as: Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent, Affirming a Disjunct, Denying a Conjunct, Fallacy of Exclusive Premises, Fallacy of Four Terms, Fallacy of Necessity, Illicit Commutativity, Illicit Major, Illicit Minor, Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premises, Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises & Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle)

Genetic Fallacy: assuming that a claim is wrong because of the nature of its origins, motive, or claimant.
(Latin: "argumentum ab originis"; also known as "association fallacy", "guilt by association" or "honour by association" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of categorical dismissal, but includes more specific instances, such as: Appeal to the Purse [Latin: "argumentum ad crumenam"], Bulverism [or Psychogenetic Fallacy], False Equivalence [or Comparing Apples and Oranges] & Playing the Nazi Card [Latin: "reductio ad hitlerum"])

Incomplete Evidence: presenting data that supports one's claim, whilst ignoring data which disputes it.
(Latin: "malum specimen"; also known as "cherry-picking", "base rate neglect", "false-positive paradox", "hasty generalization", "incomplete comparison", "prosecutor's fallacy", "proving too much", the "quantitative fallacy", "suppressed evidence" or the "texas sharpshooter fallacy" - see also Special Pleading)

Irrelevant Conclusion: presenting a counter-claim that is valid and logically sound, but irrelevant to the proponent's claims.
(Latin: "ignoratio elenchi"; also known as "missing the point" or a "red herring" - see also Strawman Argument)

Loaded Question: asking a question which has assumption or bias implicit in its phrasing, or a question which outright makes two claims, whilst purporting to make one.
(Latin: "plurium interrogationum" or "ducens inquisitum"; also known as "biased question", the "conjunction fallacy" [or the "Linda problem"] or a "double-barrelled question")

Slippery Slope: claiming that a harmless/neutral position is invalid, as it might lead to something worse.
(Latin: "ignota consequentia"; also known as "appeal to consequences"; related to "jumping to conclusions")

Special Pleading: dismissing valid criticism by claiming one's position is uniquely immune to it.
(Latin: "argumentum ad immunitas"; also known as "double-standard", "nut-picking", "shifting the goalposts" or "survivorship bias")

Strawman Argument: misrepresenting an opponent's position as a weaker claim instead, so it's easier to dismiss.
(Latin: "argumentum ad effigia" - note: This fallacy refers to many forms of claim amelioration, but includes more specific instances, such as: Persuasive Definition & Quoting Out-of-Context [or Quote Mining, also a Contextotomy])

As you can see, there are dozens of fallacies, and they are all fallacious in their own particular ways. When arguing logically, or trying to understand the truth of a claim, you must avoid using these if you wish to have a valid argument.
Now, this alone does not guarantee that a statement is false - there is after all the "Fallacy Fallacy", just because an argument is unsound doesn't mean the statement being made is wrong:
     "Of course the Earth isn't flat, what are you, stupid?" (appeal to character)
     "It's a bad idea to run with scissors, because Mummy told me so." (appeal to authority)
     "If you keep calling homosexuals 'unnatural', I'll punch you in the face." (appeal to violence)
These claims here are all accurate... but the arguments being used to prove them (or, silence dissent) aren't truly reasonable. That doesn't mean these claims are false — far from it — but it means the arguments have failed, and that's an important distinction.

If you avoid these fallacies, that should greatly improve your ability to reason, and argue your position... but that said, how do you argue well?
You might want to look into propositional calculus, and logical axioms, but at the end of the day, there's only two good ways to argue:

1. If you're arguing Fact (truth, reality and the way things are — describing how things are), then you must present evidence that what you're claiming comports with reality.
2. If you're arguing Opinion (values, morals or things you prefer — prescribing how you believe things should be), then you should establish some common belief, opinion, want or need between you and your opponent (or the target of your opinion; be that an individual, a community, or humanity as a whole), and from there, use exemplary evidence to convince others of your preference.
   

So, evidence... yeah, that's kind of it. There's also reason and logic, and when you're arguing prescriptively, it gets more complicated and requires a better understanding of logic... but it's still all about facts and proveable concepts.

In a way, it's surprising that it's so easy, since all you need to do is stop wasting time with the other stuff, but that's also what makes it complicated. Human beings are biased, emotional, messy things... I think I've said that three times now, but it's true. For a lot of us, we've already been convinced of things because of fallacy. Just think about the number of things that teachers, parents and peers taught you, and their reason was "if you don't, you'll be punished" or "do it because I told you to" or "do it, come on, we're all doing it"...
It is true, to err is human, and that is especially true of reason. Humans don't know how to argue properly. And even when you do, you may find yourself unable to convince others.

But, that's why argument and debate isn't really the point of this post... if you want to use this to engage in argument in an open forum, I whole-heartedly support you (Good Luck!). But, as far as I'm concerned, an understanding of fallacy is a necessary element of introspection, self-skepticism and personal truth-seeking.
It sounds silly, but I want you to argue with yourself, to question your own beliefs, and investigate whether they are built on a foundation of reason, fact and logic... or one of these many fallacies.

Informal fallacy is a part of human social interaction, we are irrational beings, but if you start with yourself, and develop your own beliefs, then you are able to step back into informal debate and argument, and be able to support your own beliefs.
I occasionally argue with others, philosophically, politically, morally, but my goal is never to prove anyone else wrong (people tend to get offended when you tell them they're wrong), rather, my goal is to convince myself of the other person's beliefs. If I fail, I explain to the opponent why I'm still skeptical, and present my own counter-points, based on my reason.
I don't try to prove anyone else wrong, I try to prove me wrong, and if I can't, I explain why - because I'm a skeptic, and I want to give other claims their best chance of convincing me. I don't point out fallacies as a "gotcha" to try to shut down debate... I point them out to explain "you can't convince me without reason, please provide a better argument".

See ultimately, that's the most important part of understanding argumentation - argument is fraught with peril, because of how complicated it is, but the worst possible way to argue is by trying to prove anyone else wrong. You'll never convince anyone else by isolating their wrength and pointing it out to them. To most people, pointing out where they're wrong is basically saying "Look, this is how stupid you are!", and as I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, most people aren't ready to accept that they're stupid — heck, I've been a skeptic for years, and I struggle to admit when I'm wrong — so instead, I want to focus on self-reflection, because at least then there's more room for rational debate.

If you're reading this, hoping to find a way to prove your opponent wrong... you've already failed.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and let me know if you've ever come across one of these fallacies "in the wild" - I'm sure you have, and having a list as "comprehensive" as this will hopefully make you realize just how common they are. Until Next Time, I'm going to go argue with myself about what I'm going to post tomorrow...