[porscheguy]

Help me tighten up my argument/debate ability.

I say "Radical Islamic terror has no place in our society, because they wish to impose Sharia law on all of us."

My opponent states "what about Christian fundamentalists who wish to establish their brand of religious law. They're no different."

They don't directly refute my initial assertion. It's as though I make a comment about apples, and they respond with a comment about oranges.

Are they making a strawman argument? If not, was there a fallacy? I'm not looking to win an argument with liberals, I just want to throw some big words at them to make them look stupid.

Keep in mind, this is about fallacies, not debating Islam versus Christianity.

[John Michael Kane]

Why are you debating someone with such bad faith that they would dare to compare Christian conservatives to Islamic barbarians? Total waste of time!

[Samseau]

False equivalency. False analogy.

Christian Fundamentalists are not as dangerous or even qualitatively the same as Muslim Fundamentalists.

[Il Bersagliere]

False equivalency

Edit - Guess Samseau got to it first.

[MMX2010]

Rhetorical counterpunches, "Are you asserting that you would feel equally safe in a Muslim no-go zone as in a Southern Baptist town?"

"Are you asserting that the number of dead people caused by Muslims is equal to the number of dead people caused by Christians?"

Always reveal their illogic by asking them a question that forces them to have an opinion, to make a stand. Don't shout "false equivalency" (even though that's what it is) because they won't know that, and won't bother looking it up.

Instead, always make it personal.

Lastly, Vox Day's book, SJWs Always Lie, is an excellent primer on how to argue your point with these people. He also suggests that it's often okay to completely demoralize your opponent, especially when you know you won't change his mind. Most people leave arguments because you showed them how stupid their position was; that's a victory even though you didn't change their minds.

[Delta]

False equivalency is correct.

Christian fundamentalists want to allow bakeries to refuse to bake a cake depicting two grooms. Muslim fundamentalists want to execute, or at the very least imprison all homosexuals.

Christian fundamentalists want to allow businesses to exclude contraception coverage from their group health insurance policies. Muslim fundamentalists throw acid on women who reject their proposals, disfiguring them for life.

Christian fundamentalists are responsible for a terrorist attack once every few years, if that. Worldwide, Muslim fundamentalists commit multiple terrorist attacks per day.

I could go on with this list, but you get the point. The comparison is ludicrous beyond belief. These are good examples to bring up for those who trot out the argument you mention.

[MMX2010]

Heartiste just wrote a wonderful article explaining what successfully demoralizing a person feels like.

[CynicalContrarian]

My go to in these instances is along the lines of - "Oh, so is that you volunteering to go live in X,Y,Z arab nation?"

The silence is usually deafening.

[storm]

I think you should agree.

Be sure to define fundamentalist correctly because I think your friend is mixing up the two.

A muslim fundamentalist, we can say, is one who wants shria law. We can say equivalently* that a christian fundamentalist is one who wants biblical law. This means stoning of gays, no divorce, cutting off hands for stealing, legal slavery, and of course no abortion. These are good examples because supporting Sharia means you support these things. To, effectively, you can say sharia law = biblical law.

As you can well imagine, christian fundamentalists are an insanely tiny population. There are, what, 500 in the USA total? SSPX has 10 retreat centers in the world and fewer than 100 chapels in the USA and these guys are nowhere near that far fundamentalist (although, perhaps, some may hope for this one day. Hard to tell). At 99.99% (if not more) of the churches you go to worldwide, christian fundamentalists would be considered radicals by every single person who attends.

Whereas. Nearly 70% of muslims support sharia:


So, when 70% of muslims want to stone gays, ban banks, etc. etc. and 0% of christians want something similar, isn't your friend making a convincing case for banning muslims?

* strictly speaking, one would need to add more restrictions on biblical law to get to sharia

[Germanicus]

(07-16-2016 12:54 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

I'm not looking to win an argument with liberals, I just want to throw some big words at them to make them look stupid.

You're right. There's no winning an argument with them. They believe utter nonsense like a True Believer! and self-congratulate themselves as the intellectual and moral superior of anyone who disagrees with them. We can't change that with logic and reasoning-- they have none. I don't think they have the mental capabilities to even understand that they could be wrong. Instead find effective ways to mock and insult them relentlessly. I find it immensely enjoyable to cause them emotional upsets and breakdowns merely by letting them know that yes, there seriously are real people out there that disagree with their worldview and theology despite it being the current year. Learn and use every rhetorical trick in the bag to further make their hamsters scramble and spin their way to early heart attacks.

[Cobra]

"This is not worth my time to debate."

-Sherrif Brown of Dallas

[Leonard D Neubache]

I've scared the crap out of several liberals by referencing the up-coming violence without directly threatening them.

So when they say "blah blah moderate islam blah blah extremists blah blah fundamentalist Christians" my reply usually goes to the effect of:

"The time for debate has passed. Jihad is upon us. You can side with Islam but when the shooting starts Islam won't side with you, infidel. And don't expect to come crawling back to us either."

Liberals live in a fantasy bubble where political violence doesn't exist except in a newspaper or somewhere far away, and as such they contend that unless they concede a debate then they can never lose, because debate is the only way conflicts are ever settled. Approaching the issue as per the above forces them to confront the fact that supporting a patchwork of minorities doesn't mean that anyone actually has your back, and that when push comes to shove and bullets start flying that "voting democrat' is not a survival strategy.

[debeguiled]

(07-16-2016 12:54 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

Help me tighten up my argument/debate ability.

I say "Radical Islamic terror has no place in our society, because they wish to impose Sharia law on all of us."

My opponent states "what about Christian fundamentalists who wish to establish their brand of religious law. They're no different."

They don't directly refute my initial assertion. It's as though I make a comment about apples, and they respond with a comment about oranges.

Are they making a strawman argument? If not, was there a fallacy? I'm not looking to win an argument with liberals, I just want to throw some big words at them to make them look stupid.

Keep in mind, this is about fallacies, not debating Islam versus Christianity.

Before you can even get to any fallacies, you have to stay on the subject.

They are changing the subject.

Don't let them do it.

Say that we can talk about Christianity next, let's talk about the issue with Islam now.

Most people argue like this unconsciously. When faced with anything that challenges their values, it is as if their unconscious mind delivers the perfect diversionary tactic to their mouth automatically.

I can tell you the next thing they usually say when you say they changed the subject:

"No I didn't," or "This is the real subject," or something like that. You have to hold frame on it or they will do it again and again.

A side benefit of this approach, besides being hellaciously righteous, is that it buys you some time that you can use to figure out what logical fallacy to accuse them of.

Personally, I would never make a statement like this unless I knew the verses from the Qur'an that command Sharia, and also the verses in the Bible that command a more humane approach, since you know counter accusations are almost always around the corner.

But you said it was just an experiment in style, not substance, so I will leave all that.

[thoughtgypsy]

For future reference, master list:

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/EN...lacies.htm

[Nineteen84]

(07-16-2016 12:54 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

My opponent states "what about Christian fundamentalists who wish to establish their brand of religious law. They're no different."

Actually they are different because Christianity is a building block of western civilisation, law and morality - islam is not.

[DamienCasanova]

(07-16-2016 03:50 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

For future reference, master list:

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/EN...lacies.htm

Wow that's a great list! You can just go down that and deconstruct every single lie the MSM & SJWs propagate every single day.

#4, the go-to SJW fallacy

The Affective Fallacy (also The Romantic Fallacy): A fallacy of Pathos, that one's emotions, urges or "feelings" are in every case self-validating, autonomous, and above any human intent or act of will (one's own or others'), and are thus beyond challenge or critique. In this fallacy one argues, "My feelings are valid, so therefore you have no right to criticize what I say or do, or how I say it or do it." This latter is also a fallacy of stasis, confusing reasoned response or refutation with personal devaluation, disrespect, prejudice, bigotry, sexism, homophobia or hostility. A grossly sexist form of the Affective Fallacy is the well-known fallacy that a phallus "Has No Conscience," i.e., since (particularly male) sexuality is self-validating and beyond voluntary control what one does with it cannot be controlled and is not open to criticism, an assertion eagerly embraced and extended beyond the male gender in certain reifications of "Desire" in contemporary academic theory. See also, Playing on Emotion. Opposite to this fallacy is the Chosen Emotion Fallacy (thanks to scholar Marc Lawson for identifying this fallacy), in which one falsely claims reliable prior voluntary control over one's own "gut level" internal affective reactions Related to this last is the ancient fallacy of Angelism, falsely claiming that one is capable of reasoning without emotion or pretending to place oneself above all emotion.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

I say "Radical Islamic terror has no place in our society, because they wish to impose Sharia law on all of us."

My opponent states "what about Christian fundamentalists who wish to establish their brand of religious law. They're no different."

You've started off badly by relegating the belief in Sharia to radical terrorists.

That terrorists have no place in society is self-evident. Thus, you aren't trying to prove that.

You are attempting to prove that those who believe in Sharia have no place in society. Though, I still don't think that this goes far enough. Islam, as a system, has Sharia embedded as a central pillar and so it lies dormant even when Muslims deny advocating for it when interrogated by western pollsters.

The stronger starting premise would be: Islam has no place in our society.

Opponent: Why?

You: Because Islam as a system is indivisible from Sharia. (You can go on to elaborate how and why if and when necessary).

Opponent: But what about Christian Dominionists?

You: Christian Dominionism is found no where in Christian texts, and as such is an aberration of Christianity. It is truly a reinterpretation of Christianity and as such lies at its margins. Most Christians will never encounter its tenets let alone believe in it. A reversion to the mean in Christianity will always exclude Dominionist belief.

Sharia, on the other hand, is a central pillar of Islam. Muslims have to avoid and deny this central pillar when they choose to abrogate it. Every Muslim is aware of Sharia because Sharia is normative Islam, whereas denial of Sharia is the aberration. Most Muslims, worldwide, believe in Sharia. A reversion to the mean in Islam will always include Sharia.

Thus, your argument is a false equivalency.

[thoughtgypsy]

Another list, this one is more readable:

http://joedubs.com/logical-fallacies/

[chicane]

Islamic extremists are supported and often funded by Islamic "moderates". What most people in the U.S. call an "Islamic moderates" are actually apostates by Islamic rules. Equivalent to the Christians who go to church on Christmas and maybe Easter.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-16-2016 06:30 PM)chicane Wrote:  

Islamic extremists are supported and often funded by Islamic "moderates". What most people in the U.S. call an "Islamic moderates" are actually apostates by Islamic rules. Equivalent to the Christians who go to church on Christmas and maybe Easter.

There's no point in trying to play semantics on who or who isn't a true believer. Islam has become the no true scotsman religion where every single piece of bad behavior is explained away as being done by "false" worshippers. It's a bullshit narrative.