« Home | I put almost $700 worth of food on my credit cards... » | create your own visited states map » | Starbucks Drinks Simplified (kinda): A fairly co... » | AOL Presidential Match Guide: Yes, it's an AOL a... » | "It's like trying to rebuild a car that has been d... » | God damnit, Winamp! You were great back in the v2... » | More moblogging: What Katherine thought was cho... » | Whilst dorks and car nuts doth collide: QDB: Quot... » | So, would you get just the TL: ...or would you ... » | Ford GT 1 minute ad. I could seriously watch the ... »

I've spent so much time on this site now that I cannot remember where I came from to get to it (No, I can't just hit back in my browser since I open almost all new links as a tab in Mozilla), but it was probably Slashdot.

Anyway, after having debated for a few years in high school, I learned a few terms for debate tactics, but here is an entire site with terms for each fallacy. Honestly, I must have observed all of these at one time or another. A few are extremely frustrating because it is almost as hard to explain the fallacy as it is to fight in the debate. Some examples are burden of proof, confusing cause and effect (seems easy to explain, just try with some people!), and straw man. I will admit that I have used a handful of these fallacies as well, but I usually know I am using them. They are only used when I do not have quite enough evidence to back up my clain so I attempt to hoodwink someone with a fallacy while I think of better evidence. If someone catches me in the fallacy, now I can give an offical term for the fallacy to show that I genuinely knew what I was doing.