Please Don’t Name-Drop Logical Fallacies In Everyday Arguments

I’m a big fan of arguing. I actively put myself into highly contentious spaces, whether it’s niche online forums, the comment section of a divisive article, a heated debate over dinner, or — god forbid — Twitter. I’ve been like this since I was in middle school, its a trait that’s been somewhat to my benefit and somewhat to my detriment.

I’ll admit that part of the enjoyment for me is derived purely from the highs of conflict, but more than that I truly do believe in the power of discourse to illuminate perspectives, forge understanding, and get closer to underlying truth value.

As a result, I have quite a bit of experience interacting with other people who have similarly argumentative dispositions and — as much as do appreciate many of the traits people like this display — there’s one habit that’s become increasingly prevalent in these exchanges that I find particularly irksome.

That pet peeve being the tendency of people to just name-drop logical fallacies in an attempt to win an argument — especially when this is done in every day disagreements.

Now don’t get me wrong, recognizing logical fallacies is a useful skill in critical thinking. They serve as signposts indicating flawed reasoning and can be valuable tools for dissecting arguments. However, their indiscriminate and untempered use can often do more harm than good when it comes to effective communication.

Firstly, rattling off fallacy names can come across as condescending. Picture this: you’re in the midst of a passionate discussion when suddenly your interlocutor interrupts with a triumphant “That’s just a classic appeal to authority fallacy!” It’s as if they’re wielding their knowledge of logical fallacies like a verbal bludgeon, aiming to beat you into submission rather than engage with your ideas.

More than that it leads you to coming off like an annoying know it all nerd and no-one likes those, trust me I briefly went through this faze myself.

This approach not only shuts down dialogue but also undermines the spirit of genuine inquiry. Instead of fostering understanding or reaching a consensus, it erects barriers between individuals, turning disagreements into battles of egos.

Furthermore, the mere identification of a fallacy does little to advance the conversation if it’s not accompanied by thoughtful analysis. Pointing out that someone has committed a straw-man fallacy, for instance, is only helpful if you can explain why their argument misrepresents your position and how it detracts from the overall discussion.

More often than not, however, the invocation of fallacies serves as a shortcut, a way to score rhetorical points without engaging with the substance of an argument. It’s akin to slapping a “wrong” label on someone’s forehead without bothering to explain why or how they’re mistaken.

But perhaps most importantly, fixating on fallacies shifts the focus away from the underlying issues at hand. Arguments should be about exploring different perspectives, uncovering underlying assumptions, and ultimately seeking common ground. When we get bogged down in a game of “spot the fallacy,” we lose sight of these objectives and reduce complex issues to simplistic exercises in logic-chopping.

So, what’s the alternative? Well, instead of reflexively reaching for fallacy names as a means of “winning” any given exchange, we should strive to approach disagreements with empathy, humility, and a genuine willingness to listen.

This means actively engaging with opposing viewpoints, asking clarifying questions, and being open to the possibility that we might be wrong. It means recognizing that arguments are not zero-sum games and that conceding a point doesn’t equate to defeat but rather to intellectual honesty and growth.

Of course, this isn’t to say that logical fallacies should be disregarded altogether. On the contrary, they remain valuable tools for sharpening our critical thinking skills and holding arguments to a higher standard. But we must use them judiciously, as supplements rather than substitutes for genuine dialogue.

In the end, the goal of arguing shouldn’t be to emerge victorious but to deepen our understanding, foster empathy, and build bridges between disparate perspectives.

So, let’s leave the fragrant fallacy name-dropping at the door and approach disagreements from a place of understanding rather than condescension. Only then can we hope to truly engage with one another and move forward together.