Logic

It seems that most people have significant gaps in their logic. Avoid arguing with people who do not recognize superior logic. This book is not a logic primer. I highly recommend that all readers study formal, informal, and all other types of logic, as well as critical thinking. Consider starting with logic and following as many of the referenced topics as possible. Read books and take courses about logic, debate, and critical thinking, including media literacy and social media awareness.

Focus on the various types of logical fallacies currently most prevalent, including those described herein.

Because logic is important to debate, and debate skills are relevant to logic, this content mixes both topics.

Arguments

Premises, arguments, and conclusions

First Principles

As opposed to conclusions drawn by applying the rules of logic to other premises, first principles refer to suppositions and facts that we all humans share without argument, which we cannot deduce or infer from other propositions or assumptions.

Wikipedia: First Principles

Deductive Reasoning

An argument is deductively valid if its conclusion must be true given that its premises are also true.

Wikipedia: Deductive Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning refers to generalizations and principles determined based on observations, in which conclusions are probable but not certain.

Wikipedia: Inductive Reasoning

Straw Man

A straw man argument may be valid but attempts to counter a point other than made in the original argument without acknowledging the distinction.

Wikipedia: Straw Man

Ad Hominem

Ad hominem refers to a diversionary tactic of attacking characteristics of the opponent rather than the substance of the substance of their argument (shooting the messenger).

Wikipedia: Straw Man

Logical Fallacies

There are numerous additional types of logical falacies.

Bad Faith Argument

A bad faith argument occurs when a speaker projects one set of feelings or beliefs while speaking or acting under in a contradictory manner. This may be evidence that your opponent never intended to argue rationally with logic.

Whataboutism

Whataboutism avoids responding to an argument by changing the subject to a related topic that may bear some similarity to a valid original point.

Wikipedia: Whataboutism

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor suggests evaluating the simplest explanations constructed from the least number of premises and arguments rather than assuming more complex causes.

Moving the Goalposts

Moving the goalposts refers to changing the objective of an unresolved argument to give one party a relative advantage.

Wikipedia: Moving the Goalposts

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities or when competent individuals underestimate their knowledge and skills.

Wikipedia: Dunning-Kruger Effect

Cognitive Bias

Cognitive bias refers to a systematic pattern of irrationality in judgment. Interpretations of individual and limited perspectives result in unique subjective realities, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate judgments, illogical interpretations, and irrationality.

Wikipedia: Cognitive Bias

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias occurs when a person favors information that appears to confirm rather than question their existing belief or interprets ambiguous data as supportive of their current perspective.

Wikipedia: Confirmation Bias

Groupthink

Groupthink refers to a collection of individuals reaching invalid and illogical conclusions by attempting to avoid conflict and reach consensus in order to maintain cohesion.

Wikipedia: Groupthink

Shifting the Buren of Proof

Beware of people that attempt to shift the burden of proof. For example, someone might state a conspiracy theory without any evidence, and then expect others to counter it by proving them wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Appeal to Authority or Argument from Authority

Referencing an authority figure does not prove a point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Emotional Arguments

Emotional arguments can be very effective and difficult to counter, but they are not logical arguments. Pressing an argument against someone that is crying makes them appear to be a victim and you an oppreessor. If someone tries to make you feel guilty or ashamed, they are using an emotional argument. Try to remain calm, avoid getting defensive, acknowledge their feelings, and focus on the facts rather than their feelings.

Appearances Are Important

Especially when debating in front of an audience, appearances are important. Keeping your composure gives the impression of confidence that can be challenging to an opponent while making increasing your support from anyone paying attention to the discussion.

Don't let others overpower you. Stay calm and rational. Maintain equanimity and focus on their words and arguments, not any combatative nature that may appear.

Pick Your Battles

You do not need to win every argument. In fact, it can be too your advantage to let others win small battles, so that they think that they win sometimes, while you focus on bigger issues. As long as it would not force you into positions or actions that you want to avoid, you especially may choose to let others win when they employ emotional arguments. In such cases, you may even want to apologize for disagreeing or arguing. When competing with children and others of lesser intelligence, you often want them to learn, but also to build their confidence through occasional succes. The same holds for sports, games, and other forms of competition as well.

Do Not Act Defensive

The lady doth protest too much, methinks --William Shakespeare as Queen Gertrude in Hamlet

Overreacting when you appear to have lost a point can appear as evidence of dishonesty.

Do Not Abandon What Works

You do not always have to stick to logic or a predefined plan. If humor and insult are working to your advantage, continue to use them, but in an appropriate manner, always backed up by rationally.

Then again, do not overdo it and do not overcommit to any approach. Always be ready to change tactics.