We've all done it. We're scrolling through an article on *insert social media outlet here* where we see a post that sends us up the wall and through the roof. Maybe we would have ignored it on any other day, but today just happens to not be one of those days; maybe we've had enough of the inflammatory cacophony that has given rise to the charade destined to live in infamy as the 2016 Election and we're no longer tolerating that intelligent idiot that fills our newsfeeds with his or her troll-posts. Regardless of the reason, we're driven to finally reply. Inundated by our feelings, we compose a lengthy symposium of exactly why our opponent should never have access to a keyboard again, only to be shut down because we've landed ourselves in the vicious tug-of-war of opinions. What went wrong? Why couldn't we convince this person that we were right, even with facts, well-constructed sentences, and perhaps even immaculate grammar?
Probably a logical fallacy.
For those of you who haven't gotten around to taking a humanities class, a logical fallacy is, to put it very simply, a flaw in reasoning. While most people probably can't formally define any and all fallacies, they can most certainly recognize them. Even the most juvenile of internet denizens are quick to latch onto a fallacy and completely rend any argument to shreds, even if they themselves are guilty of laying such logical errors as if they were daisies in a garden. Here, I'm going to lay out and define the most common ones that I have encountered (and perhaps been guilty of using). For the sake of comprehension, I will use the examples of Persons A and B where necessary.
1. The Strawman.
This is probably the one that pervades social media like a virus, on par with the ad hominem. The strawman fallacy occurs when an argument is twisted to make another position seem much more reasonable. Let's say that Person A wants to talk about providing Planned Parenthood with a little more funding for STD screenings and pap smears; suddenly, Person B comments, "I don't want my money going to funding killing babies and black people!" The average passerby reader wouldn't likely read past Person B's irrelevant emotional outrage to Person A's concerns (or even bother to look up the stats on where Planned Parenthood's funding really goes), in the same way that the scarecrow drives the crows away from the fields. And lo, the strawman.
2. Appeal to Emotion.
Every now and then, there is one group of Christians who show up to the school campus with pictures of the September 11th attacks and yell at the students that they're going to hell and should repent. During our Suicide Prevention Week, one of them made sure to let us know that he used to be suicidal until he found Jesus, and therefore we should convert as well. Any students who appeared to be unsure and had the tiniest ounce of doubt in their aura quickly became prey for these spiritual predators, and when asked by fellow Christians in the crowd to be kinder to the students, the presenters adamantly refused, going so far as to paraphrase I Timothy 2:12 to one female student. This is a beautiful example of the appeal to emotion fallacy. In Freudian psychology, emotion hangs out somewhere in the id with all our base desires; it can be swayed quite easily, and people looking to make a quick win with none of the mess of arguing go for this tactic. It's especially a favorite for hyper-religious arguers looking to score some cosmic brownie points by making a few converts, so be careful.
3. Ad Hominem.
This is a favorite of internet trolls and grade-schoolers alike. The ad hominem (meaning, "to the man") is an attack on the character of an individual in order to discredit the argument. One beautiful day, I was providing a Facebook acquaintance with some stats on Planned Parenthood when one of her friends decided to appear to call me racist against black people for supporting it, and therefore I must have a low IQ and such. Ignoring the fact that I am black whilst I let others decide upon my intelligence for themselves, this person's attempt to discredit my entire argument was, simply, an ad hominem attack that happened to also be a fallacy. Granted, there are ad hominem attacks that can be justified. Let's say Person A was heavily anti-deist and loved doing everything in their power to harass religious people; Person B, a Christian, would be justified in saying that Person A would definitely not be the best candidate for preacher at their local church. All in all, it's best to avoid ad hominem attacks whenever possible.
4. Burden of Proof.
In conjunction with circular reasoning, the Burden of Proof fallacy can be found most commonly on forums and social media spots where the religious and the non-religious attempt to mingle. To give an example, suppose Person A believes in a sentient space-hotdog that orbits the universe and grants wishes. Person B says that this is simply not true, but Person A claims that unless Person B can prove it isn't true, then Person A is correct in believing in the space-hotdog. All philosophical queries aside, Person A has made the mistake of believing that the burden of proof for his or her claim rests with his or her opponent, which is simply not the case. To paraphrase one YouTube atheist Cosmic Skeptic, the burden of proof never lies with the one denying the existence of something, but rather on the one who is making the claim. As he quite rightly puts it, if we were to use this logic on everything, then any claim, no matter how ludicrous, could be considered true. This is especially problematic when your opposition has provided proof for their own claims, and essentially makes you look a lot less intelligent than when you started out, no matter how much you celebrate your pseudo-win.
5. The Fallacy Fallacy.
Fallacy-ception. This is the king of all fallacies and the one that inevitably will completely destroy any and all arguments, whether in person or on the internet and whether your points are valid or not. This logical flaw dictates that an argument is false purely on the grounds that it contains a fallacy or has been argued incorrectly. Confusing, right? Well, it's the truth. For someone who just wants an easy win, attacking fallacies indiscriminately appears to be the perfect way. It also seems that the first person to directly make the claim of finding a fallacy is now immune to anyone else calling them on their own fallacies, so perhaps it is best to make sure your arguments are as sound as they can be unless you're confident you can be the first one to strike.
There are plenty of other fallacies out there to help keep you from going back and forth in a battle of wits with trolls and problematic Facebook friends alike. As always, remember to back up all of your information with unbiased sources and keep your emotions and personal opinions to a minimum. It's always best to simply scroll on by that angry Republican or pushy Democrat friend or family member, but if you must slay the dragon of ignorance, arm yourself with facts, not fallacies.
