Download the attached and you'll have a handy reference sheet to help ensure you're arguing logically, and to help you recognize when someone else isn't.

If you see mistakes or think something crucial has been omitted, please let me know. If you have questions about it, it might be better to ask them here so that others who have the same question and are afraid to ask it will learn as well.

Have fun!

Personally I think all should just read the Analytics...

You left out one of the most important rules: Quo Vadis' argument is alway valid. I can't believe you missed that one, your usually so good about these things!

Right-click the link and select Save Target As. You can then save the file to your desktop.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... efine:Woot

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot

A couple of minor points/suggestions about Handy Guide To Logical Arguments.

1. There is no definition of an argument. The basics parts of an argument are not given (Premise/Premises, Conclusion, Inference). The two ways to rationally criticize an argument are therefore not mentioned: criticize premise or inference. Being able to identify the parts is essential (conclusion/premise indicators, for example). This might be helpful for the true neophyte.
2. The definition of validity you start with is wrong (I assume typos). Validity, as defined in standard texts on logic, is the property of an argument whereby it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Or, stated positively, “that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true” (Essential of Logic, Irving Copi and Carl Cohen, p. 21). Soundness: “an argument is sound when it is both valid and its premises are in fact true” (Ibid., 25). Richard Jeffrey, in Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits, 3rd ed. defines them thus: “A valid argument is one whose conclusion is true in every case in which all its premises are true” (p. 1) and “A sound argument is one that’s valid and has no false premises” (p. 5). These are the only two texts I have at home but I have about a dozen others at my office that will say the same thing. (You hint at this in section 7.)
3. “Valid Argument Forms” should really be “Some/Common Valid Argument Forms.” You do not discuss traditional syllogisms (or their rules), for example.
4. Your list of fallacies is good. Why not Composition or Division? These are also fairly common as are Poisoning the Well or Persuasive Definition.

Good job!

Here are a few more places for debates & argumentation:
[from other dudes here in DCF, they did the work of finding, not me ]

www.kings.edu/debate/rules.htm
King's College - ADA/American Debate Association; Tournament Debate Rules

www.paulnoll.com/China/Te...dvice.html
Paul Noll - Debate Rules and Suggestions
[paulnoll.com China Teach debate-advice.html]

www.actdu.org.au/
ACT/Australian Capital Territory DU/Debating Union

www.actdu.org.au/archives...ebate.html
ACTDU - Holding your own debate
[actdu.org.au archives actein_site owndebate.html]

www.educationworld.com/a_...304b.shtml
Education World, Lesson Planning...[etc etc]:
More Resources for Classroom Debates
[ducationworld com a_lesson lesson lesson304b.shtml]

Obi-Wan & dsbrown:
My itty bitty ezboard discussion board has an itty bitty forum titled debate & argumentation. Would youse guys mind if I post this over thar? Or, if you prefer, would you guys mind starting a topic with this info?
Roland; http://p097.ezboard.com/bstollerusa

I wouldn't mind a bit.

David

You can use it. Please make clear that it's a totally unofficial document.

Just download Acrobat reader (it is free!)

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

it will open PDF files.

No PhD in computer science required

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

It's the most extensive list I've been able to find.

I understood everything, except I got kinda lost in the Equivalent Expressions...I've got a lot of learning to do :).

Also, I noticed the example for denying the antecedent seems to contradict itself at the end. Am I wrong, or is that a typo?

Thanks

Denying the antecedent:


Calgary, Alberta.

Another example would be "If I am in Houston, then I am in Texas. I am not in Houston, thus, I am not in Texas"


Wow...took me four edits to get this right. >.<

My old professor used to have a lot of nice examples of perfectly logical and true sentences. He encouraged us to find some members in Hells Angels and tell them:

- Either you will not hit me or I will hit you.

This just to see if they understand the perfect logic of this sentence.
(P = You hit me And Q = I hit you: P -> Q) which would verify the sentence according to Modus Ponens.

Another example would be:

- Do you want coffee or tea?

The logical answer:

- Yes!


(P v Q) since it's true that you want one of them

Clearly you know a lot more about logic than I do, but I have been under the impression that the definition you give for a valid argument actually refers to a sound argument: The premises are true and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

Isn't it possible for an argument to be valid but not sound? The difference is that while the conclusion follows, one or more premises is not true.

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Richard

I had a logic class last semester. Hated it.

Learn it anyway. If you want to go into persuading people of things, you have to know what is a valid argument and what isn't.

This link now seems to be given over to commercial promotion.

Here is a better link to logical fallacies. There are 42 for you to look at, and many of them occur on internet forums.

Obi-wan's guide dwells a little too heavily on mistaken inferences, and fails to note Russell's simplification with respect to "material implications", where p -> q is defined as ~p v q. The disjunctive nature of this equivalence may well be what causes confusion in the mind of the common man.

FYI, that website has a link to a <page on another site> with anti-Catholic tendencies (scroll down to "Cultural Context").

But lest I be charged with making an ad hominem, the page to which you link seems quite informative.

Amen to that. As my username implies...I am a big fan of Aristotle.