u/RareConfusion6361

I'm into debate, so I'm pretty good at spotting logical fallacies when someone I'm arguing with uses them. It's honestly made me realize how ridiculously common they are in everyday conversations (and even formal debates).

The problem is, I can recognize them, but I don't always know how to use that in the moment.

The ones I catch most often are Straw Man, Red Herring, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, Appeal to Emotion, Motte-and-Bailey, Ad Hominem, etc.

I'm not trying to be the annoying guy who just yells, "That's a fallacy!" every two minutes. What I struggle with is finding the response that actually shuts it down while still sounding persuasive to the judge in a debate or the person I am casualy talking with (knowing he might not know anything about fallacoes.)

So for those of you who are better at this: how do you counter these fallacies effectively?

I have some experience in debating so I am pretty good at spotting fallacies when people argue or try to manipualte me. however, Ive been struggling to use this knowledge in a way that would actualy benefit my communication with other people. So I'm asking the people who are better at this than me: for each of these, what's your actual go-to response?

Straw man - twisting what I said
False dilemma
Motte-and-bailey
Gaslighting
Ad hominem - attacking me instead of my point
Appeal to emotion - ignoring argument, going straight to emotions
Red herring - dragging unrelated points to throw offtrack
Whataboutism - "what about that time you did"
Slippery slope - one small thing supposedly leads to some huge disaster

Which of these do you find easiest to shut down, and which one still gets you every time?

Been doing PF for a while and crossfire is where this always gets me.

Sometimes my opponent will drop a fallacy (the ones I catch the most are Straw Man, Red Herring, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, Appeal to Emotion, Motte-and-Bailey, Ad Hominem, etc).

Spotting it isn't the hard part. The hard part is finding a clean way to call it out and actually counter it. Sometimes it feels like I'm dodging the real point by throwing out some technical vocab. What I can never nail is the thing you say back that shuts it down AND still sound convincing to the judge.

So asking the people who are better at this than me: what's your move? How do you counter some of them?

I've always been told by my teachers that I had too much of a monotone voice. They would tell me to use my voice like an instrument, go higher here, drop lower there, vary the pitch etc.... And I know they are right and what they say works. But when I do it, it feels like I am forcing myself to impersonate a speaker that Isnt true to who I am to my core.

Some coaches and teachers force upon you this default template of dynamic range, big gestures, high energy etc... Its very rare that they would ask about what my natural register was and worked outward from there. They just handed me the template.

So eventually I stopped trying to fake my public speaking performances and went looking for my own style instead. I started listening closely to speakers I actually love likke Morgan Freeman, or Barack Obama and noticed neither of them is "high energy.". They're slow, low and comfortable sitting in silence. I stopped fighting the flat register and started leaning into stillness and pauses, and that's when speaking finally started to feel like me talking instead of a character I'd been cast as.

Part of the debate club at IE University and been around the debate world for a good amount of time now. Was wondering what's the thing most people struggle with the most from their own experience, especially early on.

For me it was rebuttals honestly. I used to freeze up trying to think on the spot, and it took me way too long to realize the issue wasn't my case knowledge, it was just not being used to reacting fast under pressure and reaching the flow state.

What was it for you? Even one line is enough, curious what the real answer looks like across different formats since everyone's coach kinda says the same 3 things ("slow down," "weigh more," "extend properly") and it clearly doesn't land the same for everyone.

I think we tend to understimate how strong the victim card can be in argumentation when done perfectly.

Been noticing this thing with certain people during conflicts. Instead of actually defending what they did with logic, they kinda twist the whole situation and shift the focus to emotions.

Like you start a convo about something specific and suddenly you're 20 mins later talking about their feelings, their struggles, why they reacted that way etc... and the original point is just gone.

They'll exaggerate or fake emotional reactions to make themselves look like the victim in the situation. The reality gets warped so fast that you end up questioning what actually happened. And once the conversation moves into emotional territory instead of logic, you can't pin down facts anymore. but rather, you end up just trying to manage their feelings.

Then comes the deflection part. The problems suddenly become the circumstances, their mental state, other people, timing... They say anything but take responsibility for what they actually did.

"you caused this by not being understanding enough." "I'm sorry, you know how messy my life is right now" etc...

They're replacing logical accountability with external attribution. The real problem suddenly isn't their action, it's something outside their control.

So you start a conversation about one thing and end up defending yourself emotionally instead of debating the actual issue. The red herring works because you get pulled into managing the emotional narrative instead of staying on the logical argument.

Does anyone else run into people who argue like this? Where the facts get fuzzy and emotion becomes the substitute for defending their position?