What to stay away from in arguments and debate

I have noticed that there are several people who have a distinct lack of argumentative debating skills on here of late, and its showing itself more and more. Not only is there a lack of respect for those that are trying to debate various issues, there is much abuse towards others that goes well beyond the realm of lack of respect and goes straight to the jugular to straight up abuse. So I thought I would share some of the more important mistakes people make when arguing and debating with their fellow man in the hopes of helping educating a few and with the hope that we might all be a little more respectful towards each other in more ways than one. After all, blogging is a form of public speaking, as many people read our posts every day much like there are many listeners in an auditorium during a debate.

The following information is something that people in speech and debate are taught in their more advanced years and its actually something that politicians follow during elections for the most part. I am going to be defining it, then explaining it so that its clear what is being discussed. If you want further information on what I am going to go into- please let me know and I will gladly link the sources we use.

The first major thing we are taught following the white noise fillers and eye contact with our audience (which is useless in forums and blogs) is to avoid logical fallacy.  Now I know that some people think that logical fallacy is strictly holes in logic, and to an extent, it is. But these more have to do with what we on mindsay speak about on a regular basis:

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) This is where, instead of attacking the topic that the person is discussing, the attacker focuses on personal attacks of the person. I see this way too often on way too many pages. In short, If you can not debate the topic, do NOT resort to name calling and personal attacks on that person.
 Example: "I think that we will never have social security benefits by the time our children are school aged at the rate we borrow against it."
"Thats because we are constantly borrowing against that social security to pay for your fat unemployed ass, bitch!"
It is rude, uncouth, and all credibility that you may or may not have established is washed right out the window.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic) This is pretty straight forward: Someone will assume that because either A) you do not provide proof to what you are talking about or B) that your proof is not strong enough, that you are instantly wrong. I am not providing an example to this because this is common sense.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition) This is also pretty straight forward: Stating the same thing over and over and over. Its a form of steamrolling, and all it shows is that someone is incapable of listening. It also ruins credibility because it not only stagnates the debate, but it also stagnates the person doing it.

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is where a person will state something like "50 million people cant be wrong! Everyone else has been doing it, so should you!" A debater will state something like a statistic that supports their case, even if the case is wrong. We teach our children about this every day with the simple phrase: "If everyone in America jumped off a cliff, does that mean you should too?"

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). This is exactly what it sounds like. Its proving your point by going back to the evidence that proves your point. Its almost repetitive, but there is no flow of new logic.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) This one is an interesting one. Its taking a coincidence with the topic, and incorporating it in as proof to support the topic. The example that we were taught was "look, the economy is good! it must be because of the president who is in office!" You can see where that one goes.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). In short, stereotyping. Not everyone fits into a niche, and not everything can be rationalized into one category.

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow") This is essentially an emotional argument to promote an agenda. An example would be: "abortion is wrong, so we need to illegalize it" There is no evidence to support this action, yet by using emotion it is hoped that it will stir people to action.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) This is essentially stating that because A came before B, that B happened because of A. A great example of this: "the war in Iraq happened simply because Bush was in office at the time of the invasion." There is no evidence to support the statement, it is simply a statement that invokes ignorance.

Red herring. This is called the art of distraction. You can not prove your case, so you distract your opponent in the hopes of watching them not able to regain control of the topic at hand.

I realize that while many people do not follow these guidelines as to what to stay away from, that maybe its time we start looking at these principles a little more when pursuing an argument with a fellow person. It gives us all more pleasure in discussing or debating a topic. When any one of these is used in a debate, it takes the enjoyment right out of it. But it does take a skilled person to deflect these when they are brought up. Unfortunately, not everyone can ignore the personal barbs and continue on flawlessly. I am hoping that maybe this will help take the uncalled for part of debate away.