How to make coherent arguments about Magic

[Hi-Val]

It has come to my attention recently that rampant, blatant idiocy in the face of logic roams free like the Bison across IRC and TMD. There's no excuse for bad reasoning and it makes people look quite foolish. Since we obviously don't want these faux pas, and since good, reasoned arguments benefit everyone, I want to give the community one of my best-kept secrets.

"The Atheism Web Logic And Fallacies"

Though the site is geared towards theistic arguments, it's the absolutely best source I've found for decoding logical fallacies in my writing. The examples are particularly useful. One of the most common errors I've seen around here is that of the non-sequitor. For example:

Q: "Are apples fruit?"
A: "Apples are delicious!"

This doesn't say anything towards the argument. The one that I saw recently was:

Q: "Is it ethical to look at what other magic players are buying on ebay?"
A: "You should be more careful if you don't want people finding out what you buy."

Note how the answer doesn't even apply to the question. Here's it broken down a little more generically:

Q: Is A in category B?
A: If you want C, you should do D.

See how none of the letters in the second statement agree with anything in the first?

I hope that everyone will read this (especially that tricky little ad hominem part) and get a better grasp of logical arguments, so that people pay attention and you come off as knowledgable.

If anyone else has links like this that would help out, please post them.

[Saucemaster]

This is actually one of my biggest pet peeves.  It's bad everywhere you go, and in almost every field whose practitioners aren't specifically trained in logic and argumentation.  The Internet has got to be one of the absolute worst offenders here.  A great many of the logical fallacies listed on the Atheism Web site (and for you theists out there, don't be put off by the name--the specific part of the site that Hi-Val linked to is simply about basic logic, and has nothing to do with theistic or atheistic arguments at all) are all too commonplace.  Unfortunately, most people find logic immensely boring, and write it off as irrelevant or esoteric before they ever realize that a large number of their opinions and beliefs are actually founded on fallacies and poor reasoning.

The IRC convo that Hi-Val is referring to was a perfect example.  You may believe that it is absolutely ethical to check someone's eBay transactions to see what they might be planning on playing.  That's a valid point of view to agree with, disagree with, defend, or attack.  That's fine.  But the response, when Doug asked the question, was not "yes, it is ethical, and here's why", or "no, it's not ethical, and here's why", it was "c'mon, you have to be more careful.  Of course people are going to do that if they can."  Well that may very well be true, but that has nothing at all to do with the question that was asked.  A similar question was asked later: "Is it right to try to sneak a peek at a team's deck reg sheets when they're being handed in?"  The response, once again, was not "yes" or "no" with reasons given; the response was "just stop them from doing it and make sure they don't peek."  Well *obviously*.  That's not the issue.  The issue is whether it's right for someone to do so in the first place.  God, I'm getting annoyed just remembering.

And, incidentally, I think the second is definitely unethical, and the first is a gray area for me--I can't make up my mind on it.