When twinned fallacies would lead to stalemate

Verbally debating, I find difficulties

when two fallacious arguments are presented,

one in opposition to the other answer and vice versa,

each time overlooking the counter-observations.

What to do?

The reply by Gemini:

You've described a frustrating but common situation in verbal debates: two debaters each presenting fallacious arguments that contradict each other, and neither side acknowledging the flaws in their own reasoning or the valid points of the other. This kind of exchange often leads to stalemate and unproductive argument. Here's a breakdown of strategies you can use to navigate this:

1. Identify and Name the Fallacies:

Be Specific: Don't just say "that's wrong." Clearly articulate what fallacy is being committed. For example: "That's a straw man fallacy because you're misrepresenting my argument..." or "That's an ad hominem attack, and it doesn't address the actual issue."
Stay Calm: It's easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment, but try to remain calm and objective. This will help you think clearly and articulate your points effectively.
Politely Point Them Out: Frame your observations constructively. Instead of saying "You're using a fallacy!", try something like, "I think I see a potential flaw in that argument. It seems like a straw man fallacy because..."

2. Refocus on the Core Issue:

Return to the Main Point: Often, these kinds of debates veer off-topic. Gently steer the conversation back to the central issue being discussed. "Let's get back to the main point, which is..."
Establish Common Ground (If Possible): Even if you disagree on the conclusion, try to find some areas of agreement. This can create a more collaborative atmosphere and make it easier to discuss the points of disagreement.

3. Structure the Debate (If Possible):

Suggest a Format: If the debate is informal, you could suggest a more structured approach. For example, "Could we maybe take turns presenting our points and then address each other's concerns?"
Request Evidence: Ask for evidence to support claims. "You're making a strong claim, could you provide some sources or data to back that up?"

4. Disengage if Necessary:

Recognize When It's Unproductive: If the other person is unwilling to acknowledge their fallacies or engage in a good-faith discussion, it might be best to disengage. You're not obligated to continue a pointless argument.
Agree to Disagree: Sometimes, despite your best efforts, you won't be able to reach an agreement. In these situations, it's okay to agree to disagree and move on.

5. Practice Active Listening:

Listen Carefully: Make sure you understand the other person's argument before you try to refute it. You might even ask clarifying questions to make sure you've understood them correctly.
Acknowledge Points (Even If You Disagree): Even if you don't agree with someone's conclusion, you can acknowledge valid points they've made. This shows that you're listening and considering their perspective.

Example:

Let's say the debate is about climate change.

Person A (Fallacy): "Climate change is a hoax created by scientists to get grant money." (Conspiracy theory, Ad hominem against scientists)
Person B (Fallacy): "Well, environmentalists are just trying to destroy the economy." (Straw man, Ad hominem against environmentalists)

Your Response: "I think both of those statements contain some problematic assumptions. Person A, the idea that all scientists are conspiring for grant money is a pretty broad generalization. Could you provide some evidence for that? And Person B, it's a mischaracterization to suggest that all environmentalists want to destroy the economy. Many are focused on sustainable solutions. Can we maybe focus on the actual evidence for and against the reality of climate change and discuss possible solutions?"

By using these strategies, you can improve the quality of your debates and make them more productive, even when faced with fallacious reasoning. Remember, the goal isn't just to "win" an argument, but to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas.

My reply:

Would you tell me more about how fallacies are classified?

The reply by Gemini:

You're right to ask about the classification of fallacies – it's a helpful way to understand their different types and how they work. There isn't one single, universally agreed-upon classification system, but here are some of the most common and useful ways to categorize fallacies:

1. Formal vs. Informal Fallacies:

Formal Fallacies: These are errors in the structure or form of the argument. The argument is invalid regardless of the truth or falsity of the premises. These fallacies can be identified by analyzing the symbolic structure of the argument. They are more common in formal logic. Example: Affirming the Consequent. "If it rains, the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained." (The ground could be wet for other reasons).
Informal Fallacies: These are errors in the content or meaning of the argument. The problem lies in how the premises relate to the conclusion, not in the formal structure. These fallacies often involve misleading language, irrelevant information, or unjustified assumptions. They are more common in everyday arguments. Example: Ad hominem. "You're just saying that because you're a liberal." (Attacking the person, not their argument).

2. Fallacies of Relevance:

These fallacies occur when the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Even if the premises are true, they don't provide proper support for the conclusion. Examples include:

Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): Instead of addressing the argument, the arguer attacks the person making it.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Appeal to Emotion: Trying to persuade by manipulating emotions (fear, pity, etc.) instead of using logic.
Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main issue.
Appeal to Authority: Claiming something is true simply because an authority figure said so, without sufficient evidence.

3. Fallacies of Ambiguity:

These fallacies arise from the use of vague or ambiguous language. The meaning of words or phrases is shifted or unclear, leading to faulty reasoning. Examples include:

Equivocation: Using the same word in two different senses in an argument, making it seem valid when it isn't. Example: "Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore, a sandwich is better than eternal happiness."
Amphiboly: Ambiguity arising from the grammatical structure of a sentence. Example: "I saw the man with the telescope." (Who had the telescope?)
Composition/Division: Assuming that what is true of a part is also true of the whole (composition) or vice versa (division).

4. Fallacies of Presumption:

These fallacies occur when the argument relies on an unjustified assumption or hidden premise. Examples include:

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): The conclusion is already assumed in the premises. Example: "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."
False Dilemma (Black-or-White Fallacy): Presenting only two options when more exist.
Slippery Slope: Claiming that one action will inevitably lead to a chain of negative consequences, without sufficient evidence.

5. Other Classifications:

Some classifications focus on the psychological aspects of fallacies (how they persuade), while others focus on the dialogical context (how they are used in debates).

It's important to note that these categories are not always mutually exclusive. A single fallacy might fall into multiple categories. The key is not necessarily to label every fallacy perfectly, but to understand why the reasoning is flawed. By familiarizing yourself with these different types, you'll be better equipped to identify and avoid them in your own thinking and in the arguments of others.

My reply:

How we classify the case of

a principle which is opposed by a very particular and complex case

that can be resolved but not without adequate investigation

and certainly not in a brief verbal debate?

The reply by Gemini:

You've described a situation where a general principle clashes with a specific, complex case. This is a common occurrence, especially in fields like ethics, law, and policy, and it highlights the limitations of brief verbal debates for resolving such intricate issues. Here's how we can classify and approach this kind of situation:

1. Principle vs. Particular:

This situation fundamentally involves a tension between a general principle (a rule, guideline, or value) and a specific, complex case. The principle is meant to apply broadly, but the particular case presents unique circumstances that might make applying the principle straightforwardly problematic or even unjust.

2. Complexity and Nuance:

The key here is the complexity of the particular case. It's not a simple exception to the rule; it requires in-depth investigation and careful consideration of various factors. These factors might include:

Factual Details: All relevant facts of the case need to be established accurately.
Context: The specific context in which the case arises is crucial. Similar cases in different contexts might require different approaches.
Values at Stake: Multiple values might be in conflict, and it's necessary to weigh them against each other.
Unintended Consequences: Applying the principle without considering the specific case might lead to unintended and undesirable outcomes.

3. Limitations of Brief Debate:

A brief verbal debate is often insufficient to resolve such complex situations because:

Time Constraints: Complex cases require time for investigation and deliberation. A short debate format doesn't allow for this.
Oversimplification: In a debate, there's a tendency to oversimplify complex issues to make them more easily digestible for the audience. This can lead to a neglect of crucial details.
Lack of Expertise: Debaters might not have the necessary expertise to fully understand all aspects of the case.
Polarization: Debates can often become polarized, with each side digging in its heels and refusing to acknowledge the validity of opposing arguments. This makes it difficult to find common ground or reach a nuanced understanding.

4. Appropriate Approaches:

Instead of a brief debate, more appropriate approaches for dealing with such situations include:

In-Depth Investigation: Gathering all relevant facts, consulting experts, and considering different perspectives.
Case Study Analysis: Analyzing the specific case in detail, considering its unique features and implications.
Deliberative Dialogue: Engaging in constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, aiming to understand different viewpoints and find common ground.
Ethical Frameworks: Using ethical frameworks (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics) to evaluate the different options and make informed decisions.

Legal Proceedings (If Applicable): If the case involves legal issues, it might need to be resolved through legal proceedings.

5. Classifying the Situation Itself:

We could classify this situation as a "conflict between a general principle and a complex particular case requiring in-depth investigation." This classification highlights the need for careful analysis and deliberation, rather than a quick debate.

In summary: When faced with a principle opposed by a complex case, resist the urge to jump into a brief debate. Instead, advocate for a more thorough and nuanced approach that allows for adequate investigation and consideration of all relevant factors.