There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Essay:The Debater Debacle
Alright, a parable:
A fierce debater is talking to Joe. Joe says, "Ahhhhh. Lovely day outside, the sky is blue, the grass is green…"
"How do you know the grass is green?" replies the debater.
"Just look at it, idiot, it's green!" snaps Joe.
"I find your reliance on ad hominem attacks laughable."
"Man, come on, that grass is green like rain's wet!"
"Like your mom! But seriously, that's a false analogy."
"Either that grass is green, or I can shit Cheetos and apple juice."
The debater, with a bored tone, drones, "False dichotomy."
Seeing some people strolling by, Joe, now desperate, calls out to them. "Hey, what color is this grass?"
Though puzzled, they reply, "Green?"
The debater laughs. "An argumentum ad populum?"
The point of this article is how annoying and nit-picky people get with that long list of fallacies. Even if you're right, the way you word it is broken down and categorized into mistakes, and thrown back at you. If we would instead actually get an idea for what people are proposing and think about it, and decide what our opinions are on their opinion, we could do a lot less fighting and a lot more learning. Don't argue with semantics, argue with ideas. I call this phenomena "The Debater Debacle".