On this forum, often in debate, someone brings up logic. I would just like to point out some fallacies of logic that we all have been guilty of one time or another.
1.
over-generalizing: This con is common, seductive, and dangerous. Its Latin name is secundum quid, meaning "in some one respect only." It involves assigning a characteristic to an entire group on the basis of only one or two observations.
2.
The "thin entering wedge" con: This one uses past or present observations to predict an outcome. Example: If this person gets elected, they will ruin the country.
3
.tu quoque or ad hominem: This one happens a lot on here. When a argument is brought forward, the one will often point out a flaw or failure in the one that introduced the argument. This is done on here by bringing up Grammar or something else.
post hoc: Just because one event precedes another event, the first is deemed to be the cause of the second; there need be no other data or rationale to support that conclusion.
figures prove: Arbitrary manipulation of statistics to the point of absurdity. Another kind of "figures prove" con is founded on the premise that if a certain cause produces a certain effect, then twice that cause would produce twice that effect. If one vitamin capsule a day is good for you, five should be five times as good. If one serving of carrots a day is good for you, five servings a day should be five times as good for you. Ten a day, ten times, etc.
guilt by association: This argumentation con holds that two unlike persons, plants, animals, or things can be equated because of a single common trait or characteristic or attribute or belief, depending upon what's involved.
appealing to authority: believing that those held to be wise or those who are famous cannot be wrong.
You can see several more here:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just curious to know why you think people on here use them? I honestly think most people don't know they are doing it.