This is a vault about arguing well. Not winning arguments. Arguing well. The two are not the same thing, and most people never learn the difference.
I started this after losing an argument I should have won. I was right, and I still lost, because I did not know how to name what the other person was doing to me. So I read. Now I write it down here, in plain terms, with examples and counters you can actually use.
Everything here is split into four folders.
Fallacies
The bad moves. Each entry gives the etymology, a tight definition, the types it comes in, an example of each, and a counter you can use when someone pulls it on you. The counter matters more than the label. Knowing the name of the trap does nothing if you cannot get out of it.
- Ad Hominem (To the Person): attacking the proponent instead of the argument.
- Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force): arguing with a threat.
- Circulus in Probando (Circular Reasoning): using the claim to prove the claim.
- Genetic Fallacy: judging a claim by where it came from, not what it says.
- Red Herring (Distraction): dragging the topic somewhere else.
- Strawman Fallacy: beating a version of the argument that was never made.
Principles
The foundations. The ideas everything else rests on. Fewer entries here, but they hold up the rest.
- Causality: the relationship between cause and effect, and why you cannot escape it.
Sources
How to find and judge evidence. What counts as a real source, and how to tell one from something that only sounds convincing.
- Proper Sources: what counts as evidence, and how to tell a real source from a convincing one.
Publications
Longer pieces. The tools above put to work on real arguments, essays and analyses that argue a case at full length instead of defining a single move.
- The “Fascism” Fallacy Bangladesh’s Post-Revolution Misconception: During and after the “Quota Reform” / “Anti-Discriminatory” Protests, which ultimately caused the overthrowing of the ruling dictatorial party “Awami League,” the word “Fascist” has been thrown around. This is not only wrong but also dangerous. That is why I compiled this paper, describing “Fascism” and its characteristics, and then presenting arguments for and against the usage of “Fascism.”
- Navigating Grief and Loss in a Fast-Paced World: In today’s rapidly moving world, dealing with grief and loss can be exceptionally challenging. The intense pace of modern life demands constant productivity and mental strength, leaving little time or space to process grief. Our energy gets drained in the sink that is the modern world itself. Drawing from Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief, this essay explores the tendency to rush towards acceptance, often at the expense of a proper grieving process. It explores various philosophical perspectives : Stoicism, religious beliefs, existentialism, and absurdism as methods for finding meaning and peace in the face of loss. The original purpose of this essay is for a competition in an organization called Agamir Hashi.
How to use this
Read the fallacy entries first. They are the most practical. When someone does something in an argument that feels wrong but you cannot say why, come here and find the name for it. Once a bad move has a name, it stops working on you.
That is the whole point. You do not study logic to sound smart. You study it so you stop getting fooled.