is calling out fallacies a legitimate argumentative tactic in

>>7571488
>is calling out fallacies a legitimate argumentative tactic in debate
Not if it's not an actual fallacy, which, as you pointed out, isn't normally the case.

>>7571524
*is

>>7571488
>is calling out fallacies a legitimate argumentative tactic in debate
No, it isn't. If you identify a fallacy, you should attack the fallacious argument, not just squawk "ad hom" over and over. Or just keep piling them on; if your opponent calls you a faggot for wanting to make homo marriage legal, call him a murderer for being in favor of abortion. Whatever floats your boat.

The latter, there's no point to "calling out" a fallacy. It's worse that people will think the argument containing a fallacy makes the conclusion false.

>>7571581
Identity a fallacy by what measure? An arbitrarily defined 'list of logical fallacies'? What claim does such a list have to absolute truth?

>>7571488
>is calling out fallacies a legitimate argumentative tactic in debate or just a cop out for people who aren't intelligent enough to articulate a response?

the latter.

>is this even /lit/ related?

no fuck off

>>7571488
It can be a cop out, but I think that fallacies are real and they can be used to warp facts in favor of the person using them. They are a breach in logic and they need to be pointed out to find the truth of the topic of discussion to the best of our ability.

the strawman one is a cop out but some others like reduction and generalization affirming disjuncture exclusives should be pointed out if not pointed out in plain words then use the same tactics to counter the fallacious argument

to render a knowingly fallacious argument into a legitimate argument is deceptive and adds to the things outside of scope

but most of the time people recognize them without the need to name them and can operate with the knowledge that the argument is derived wrongfully

>>7571488
people think that if you call out a fallacy then that somehow makes the other argument null and void when that isn't always the case.

for example, if someone said "SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY", that in fact could be your argument, that the subject you are debating is leading into that slope due to the evidence given. just because you can call something a fallacy doesn't always mean the argument is then completely void. you have to counter-argue with evidence from your argument to make a stronger counter-claim. copping out to just saying fallacies is pretty much what plebs and undergrads do

Just as mathematicians and logicians refrain from saying 'QED' until they've got an actual, worked-out proof of some theorem T, it's not a strawman (and you shouldn't say that it's a strawman) until you demonstrate that by picking apart your interlocutors argument. And you have to cite (to your interlocutor and your audience) which definition of 'strawman' you're going with.

Typing out 'strawman' alone isn't going to convince anyone, unless you're dealing with an inexperienced audience (teens, usually). But you're probably a teen too.

>>7572033

Are you stupid?

You have to establish the context first. What the fuck is a "debate?" What is your goal in a given "debate?" Are you arguing with some retard on Facebook or what? Do you want to "win" or actually convince your opponent to agree with you, or what?

Check out the chronologically earliest dialogues of Plato, which are focused on refuting eristic sophists and making a distinction between "argument by getting your opponent to give up" or "argument to establish a point mutually agreed upon as true."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right