Talk:Sanctioning the devil

Attribution
Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Sanctioning_the_Devil 00:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Logical fallacy?
This is not a "logical fallacy" at all, because the claim is not that the person is wrong because of this. It's a mode of social interaction. Seriously, what is this shit. It reads like a woomeister calling a skeptic a "pseudoskeptic" for stepping on their personal toe - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ^it'd be fallacious if used to advance the refuser's claims. It isn't (usually). You can't have fallacy without argument. 09:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did anyone actually look at the cited references? Diana Mertz Hsieh just lists it by name, the second is “We are not going to give those heretics a platform.” and the third is "Really not a fallacy, but can be considered one by the flat-earther you are refusing to debate". The evolutionist example was thrown in by the original evowiki author of this single-version stub. This article is currently terrible - David Gerard (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hertz defines it as I do. Even the nutty SeekFind agrees that it's fallacious to deny a position a platform. Bennet says it's not fallacious, but doesn't say why.
 * You manage to ignore the Bush article.
 * "Single-version stub" has all the empty meaning of a slur.
 * I added the inverse form of the fallacy and exceptions, to explain the fallacious creationist/crank use.
 * Calm TF down. You typify angry overreaction. 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On a calmer note, I again submit that it can't be fallacious when not used to advance an argument, because nothing could in that place be. 22:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone brighter than I apparently already wrote a slightly more insulting example into Logical fallacy. 22:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is true of all fallacies. The article only applies when the lack of debate is used to prove a conclusion. 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also not seeing any fallacious reasoning here.
If debating someone gives them (or their position) credibility and that person('s position) shouldn't be given credibility, then they shouldn't be debated. You can argue that the first premise is generally false or that the second premise is false depending on the specific person in question, but the premises being false wouldn't make the reasoning invalid (i.e. fallacious). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Formal fallacy occurs when the syllogism is false. Informal fallacy occurs when the syllogism is valid, yet the premises are false. 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The premises don't seem unilaterally wrong, though, so giving the general description "this is a logical fallacy" at the start seems unjustified. Wouldn't holding a debate with someone who believes the world is controlled by a hierarchy of reptilians, unicorns and little fairies give that view undue acknowledgement? Also, the "inverse form" doesn't really seem like an inverse of the original. One says "X didn't engage in debate, therefore they are wrong" while the other says "X('s views) shouldn't be given merit/credibility/acknowledgement (because they're blatantly wrong, I assume?), therefore debating X is undesirable." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The way this is stated makes it seem like refusing to debate idiots out of not wanting to justify them with time is a fallacy. Not really. Maybe if somebody said I refuse to debate them- this furthers my position/makes me right it would be a fallacy. IdidNaziThatComing (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct response
Set up the correct sort of logic trap (including 'recognising the devil's arguments') so your opponent's arrant stupidity/the incoherence in their argument is exposed through their own words (in a way that does not elicit sympathy for them). 31.49.127.70 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)