Common Logical Fallacies In Political Arguments

[Soggy in NOLA]

Let me translate this thread for you:

"I'M SMARTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I SAY SO".

The Pout (also The Silent Treatment, Noncooperation):. An Argumentum ad Baculam that arbitrarily rejects or gives up on dialogue before it is concluded.

What dialogue? You're just regurgitating the dictionary.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."

That's an incorrect understanding of the fallacy. Even if someone is an expert in the subject being debates, that doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Experts are often wrong. The facts determine whether any particular claim is correct, not some authority.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have been told that the argument from authority is valid if your authority is legitimate. That's basically what you just said, so you're a bonehead.

It's not a fallacy to take the opinion of an expert in their field unless it's an opinion not in their field. If my foot doctor says I need my big toe operated on, he might be wrong but it's not a fallacy to take his advice. Now if he says the reason my tomatoes won't grow is I need to add used motor oil, and I take his advice because he's a respected foot doctor, that is a fallacy, piss freak.

 

[Agit8r]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

 

[bripat9643]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."

That's an incorrect understanding of the fallacy. Even if someone is an expert in the subject being debates, that doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Experts are often wrong. The facts determine whether any particular claim is correct, not some authority.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have been told that the argument from authority is valid if your authority is legitimate. That's basically what you just said, so you're a bonehead.

It's not a fallacy to take the opinion of an expert in their field unless it's an opinion not in their field. If my foot doctor says I need my big toe operated on, he might be wrong but it's not a fallacy to take his advice. Now if he says the reason my tomatoes won't grow is I need to add used motor oil, and I take his advice because he's a respected foot doctor, that is a fallacy, piss freak.

We arent talking about taking advice. That isn't debate. We're talking about whether an argument is valid. The argument that 'A' is true because 'B' says so and he's the expert isn't valid. Einstein was wrong about certain theories in physics. There's no more valid expert than Einstein in physics, yet he was still wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

 

[Agit8r]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

 

[bripat9643]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

I've never seen anyone but you post that fallacy.

 

[Agit8r]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

I've never seen anyone but you post that fallacy.

Bookmarked this. Will update.

 

[Pogo]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

Perhaps I didn't articulate it adequately. What I mean is that poster 2 declares poster 1 to be (personally) a Saul Belinsky disciple. Which is blatantly dishonest if poster 1 doesn't even have a clue who he's talking about.

It's a version of Poisoning the Well, and/or a kind of Negative Appeal to Authority, but it has the twist that the fallacizer deliberately lies about (fabricates) the association between the poster and the authority.

Joe Niekro could have taught techniques on how to throw a knuckleball. If I develop the same technique, it doesn't mean I got it from Joe Niekro.

Finally, we aren't discussing "propaganda" but logical fallacies.

Yeah, I got that.
I think you are missing the point that the real issue in that scenario, is that Poster 1 is using propaganda techniques instead of engaging in honest dialog.

The Poisoning the Well is relatively minor aspect of the real issue.

What the techniques may be is irrelevant to my point. Again, I can develop a knuckleball independent of ever having even heard of Joe Niekro.

The point is that my throwing that knuckleball ------- DOES NOT mean that therefore I have an association personally with Joe Niekro.

 

[Agit8r]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

I've never seen anyone but you post that fallacy.

What is conservatism, but one long argument from authority?

 

[Correll]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

Perhaps I didn't articulate it adequately. What I mean is that poster 2 declares poster 1 to be (personally) a Saul Belinsky disciple. Which is blatantly dishonest if poster 1 doesn't even have a clue who he's talking about.

It's a version of Poisoning the Well, and/or a kind of Negative Appeal to Authority, but it has the twist that the fallacizer deliberately lies about (fabricates) the association between the poster and the authority.

Joe Niekro could have taught techniques on how to throw a knuckleball. If I develop the same technique, it doesn't mean I got it from Joe Niekro.

Finally, we aren't discussing "propaganda" but logical fallacies.

Yeah, I got that.
I think you are missing the point that the real issue in that scenario, is that Poster 1 is using propaganda techniques instead of engaging in honest dialog.

The Poisoning the Well is relatively minor aspect of the real issue.

What the techniques may be is irrelevant to my point. Again, I can develop a knuckleball independent of ever having even heard of Joe Niekro.

The point is that my throwing that knuckleball ------- DOES NOT mean that therefore I have an association personally with Joe Niekro.

Yeah, I got that.

IF you don't want to be mistaken for a Saul Alinliski acolyte, then don't act like one.

 

[Correll]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

I've never seen anyone but you post that fallacy.

What is conservatism, but one long argument from authority?

All you just did there was show how completely ignorant you are of conservatism

 

[Agit8r]

My favorite is the argument from authority. See signature

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

I've never seen anyone but you post that fallacy.

What is conservatism, but one long argument from authority?

All you just did there was show how completely ignorant you are of conservatism

Then enlighten me

 

[Pogo]

Here's one I'm not sure how to classify --- it's bizarre.

Poster 1: "I'll reiterate this point again: blah blah blah..."
Poster 2: "You're repeating a prior point! Saul Belinsky Chapter 4, subparagraph 8!"

(Poster 1 has never even heard of Saul Belinsky)

EVEn if Poster one hasn't personally heard of Saul Alinski, he might have picked up the propaganda techniques from examples of other leftists.

The complaint of propaganda behavior could well be true.

Perhaps I didn't articulate it adequately. What I mean is that poster 2 declares poster 1 to be (personally) a Saul Belinsky disciple. Which is blatantly dishonest if poster 1 doesn't even have a clue who he's talking about.

It's a version of Poisoning the Well, and/or a kind of Negative Appeal to Authority, but it has the twist that the fallacizer deliberately lies about (fabricates) the association between the poster and the authority.

Joe Niekro could have taught techniques on how to throw a knuckleball. If I develop the same technique, it doesn't mean I got it from Joe Niekro.

Finally, we aren't discussing "propaganda" but logical fallacies.

Yeah, I got that.
I think you are missing the point that the real issue in that scenario, is that Poster 1 is using propaganda techniques instead of engaging in honest dialog.

The Poisoning the Well is relatively minor aspect of the real issue.

What the techniques may be is irrelevant to my point. Again, I can develop a knuckleball independent of ever having even heard of Joe Niekro.

The point is that my throwing that knuckleball ------- DOES NOT mean that therefore I have an association personally with Joe Niekro.

Yeah, I got that.

IF you don't want to be mistaken for a Saul Alinliski acolyte, then don't act like one.

That's a fallacy right there. No one has the burden of going out to find every possible figure he could be compared with, studying each one, and then meticulously filtering out those traits. Not only is that idea patently absurd ---- it would leave one mute.

 

[g5000]

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."

That's an incorrect understanding of the fallacy.

No, it is an entirely correct understanding. Did you even read the link,idiot?

"...such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, there is evidence conflicting with the authority's position, or when the authority cited is not a true expert."

Even if someone is an expert in the subject being debates, that doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Experts are often wrong. The facts determine whether any particular claim is correct, not some authority.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have been told that the argument from authority is valid if your authority is legitimate. That's basically what you just said, so you're a bonehead.

What I said is that one must give a lot more weight to the statement of an expert than to some retard like you on the internet. It's a simple as that.

 

[Correll]

Yep, and it's a fallacy. Now everyone knows how fucking stupid you are.

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

I've never seen anyone but you post that fallacy.

What is conservatism, but one long argument from authority?

All you just did there was show how completely ignorant you are of conservatism

Then enlighten me

Kind of off topic here. But, go knock yourself out.

Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[g5000]

You should have called your OP "Common leftwing arguments"

Wow! In a topic specifically about logical fallacies, you demonstrate irony by employing one!

Using BripatLogic hencefoth, anyone caught using a logical fallacy will be ipso facto "leftwing".

 

[Agit8r]

It's a fallacy that almost every right winger uses. At least I use quotes that are real, unlike y'all.

I've never seen anyone but you post that fallacy.

What is conservatism, but one long argument from authority?

All you just did there was show how completely ignorant you are of conservatism

Then enlighten me

Kind of off topic here. But, go knock yourself out.

Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deferring to authority, eh?

 

[g5000]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

Hasty Generalization is a big one around here. "Here's a story about a Demopub caught fucking an iguana. Therefore, all Demopubs are iguana fuckers."

Confirmation Bias: Remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses". Actively seeking out news stories which align with one's belief system, while denying or ignoring the majority which do not.

This problem is enhanced by the fact that only negative events make the news, while non-events do not.

For example, let's return to our brain surgeons and circus clown. 97,000 successful surgeries do not make the news. But 3,000 failed ones do, and that is all the circus clown and his followers talk about. Every time a brain surgeon makes an error, that gets big air play until the circus clown has a lot of people convinced that brain surgeons are a menace to society and that brain surgery would be better down by circus clowns.

Every time a brain surgeon makes a mistake, the propaganda outlets scream it loud and far and wide, with doom music to add a little Appeal To Emotion. "Haul out the coma lady! These brain surgeons are trying to destroy America!!!"

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."


Argument from Inertia: Magical thinking. The more often you repeat something, the truer it becomes, no matter how many times it has been proven wrong. Usually because it is too painful to admit one's belief system is wrong.

Very revealing attitude.

 

[g5000]

Appeal to Emotion: In order to get support for a piece of legislation, a politician will do something I satirize with "Roll out the cancer lady!" We saw this during the ObamaCare debate. A pathetic creature is shoved into the spotlight in an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into supporting the cause. We see other politicians stand on the dead bodies of the victims of terrorism to get people to support domestic spying or waterboarding. This is a very commonly used logical fallacy.

Straw Man: One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. "Demopubs hate America and want to see it destroyed!" If you see this employed frequently on your favorite "news" channel, you are very likely watching a propaganda network.

Argument From Ignorance: Making a claim and then expecting someone to prove it isn't true. How often have you seen someone make a claim and then when asked for evidence, they reply, "Do your own research!" That's an argument from ignorance. Claims must be supported by the person making the claim.

Politician's Syllogism: This fallacy usually takes the form:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This makes the false assumption the "solution" is better than the problem. For example, let's say brain surgeons have a 3 percent malpractice rate. Then a circus clown comes along and says, "Brain surgeons are causing too many serious injuries. It's a disaster. Something needs to be done about this. Therefore, I should take over brain surgery."

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle: Also knows as False Dilemma, also known as a False Dichotomy. A proposition is offered which suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are three or more. Example: "If you don't support Trump, you must be a Democrat." Example: "If we don't tax the rich more, we will go deeper into debt." Example: "You're either for us, or against us."


Argumentum ad Populum:: The belief that the more people who agree on something, the truer it becomes. "98 percent of people believe the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese." A very common argument used in politics by demagogues. "A lot of people agree with me, so I am right."

Ad Hominem: Ad homs are more than just simple name calling. An ad hominem is when facts are dismissed simply because the source is not popular. It is not always incorrect to dismiss a claim from a source if that source has been proven to put out misinformation or lies in the past. If you keep going back to a source that is well known to lie, I often like to say, "Stop getting back in line for a refill of your piss cup." An improperly used ad hominem would be, "She's fat, old and ugly. Look at these pictures of just how fat and ugly and old she is. Therefore, whatever she says is wrong."


Tu Quoque: This is by far the most popular logical fallacy on this forum. The moment a topic is started which shows a politician in a negative light, the Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town to divert the topic into a discussion about someone entirely different of the opposite party. "Two wrongs make a right". If a politician is caught having sex with a donkey, and someone attempts to defend that politician by bringing up something another politician of the opposite party did, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy, and one has to wonder why someone would employ it to defend the donkey fucker. If, on the other hand, a person is found to have excused a donkey fucker of one party, but then later starts a topic intended to attack a donkey fucker of the other party, that is hypocrisy and anyone pointing it out would be right to do so. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between using a Tu Quote fallacy and pointing out hypocrisy.

One you left out is appeal to authority, usually used when debating Supreme court decisions or current laws. it is used to ignore the subject matter behind the case or the law, and just say "well that's what the people in charge say, so it must be right".

Argument From Authority: The mistaken idea that someone who is well-informed in one field is an authority in a completely different field. "He's a very successful casino owner, so what he says about the Supreme Court is true."

That's an incorrect understanding of the fallacy. Even if someone is an expert in the subject being debates, that doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Experts are often wrong. The facts determine whether any particular claim is correct, not some authority.

The truly hilarious aspect of this is that I have been told that the argument from authority is valid if your authority is legitimate. That's basically what you just said, so you're a bonehead.

It's not a fallacy to take the opinion of an expert in their field unless it's an opinion not in their field. If my foot doctor says I need my big toe operated on, he might be wrong but it's not a fallacy to take his advice. Now if he says the reason my tomatoes won't grow is I need to add used motor oil, and I take his advice because he's a respected foot doctor, that is a fallacy, piss freak.

We arent talking about taking advice. That isn't debate. We're talking about whether an argument is valid. The argument that 'A' is true because 'B' says so and he's the expert isn't valid. Einstein was wrong about certain theories in physics. There's no more valid expert than Einstein in physics, yet he was still wrong.

If Einstein was speaking about physics, and a dipshit like you said, "Nuh-uh!", I'll take Einstein's word over yours every day.

You are like those retards who say psychics are real because science a few thousand years ago said the Earth was flat.