Critiquing Logical Fallacies

批判逻辑谬误

One debater points out and explains the presence of a logical fallacy (e.g., ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma) in the opponent's argument, challenging its validity.

一个辩论者指出并解释对手论点中存在的逻辑谬误（例如，人身攻击、稻草人谬误、虚假两难），质疑其有效性。

对话

聆听并跟进对话

Philosopher A (Male)

Your argument, while emotionally charged, seems to hinge on the idea that anyone who disagrees with your proposed societal structure must inherently be selfish or lacking empathy. I find that problematic.

您的论点，尽管充满感情色彩，但似乎都建立在这样一个观念上：任何不同意您所提出的社会结构的人，本质上都是自私的或缺乏同情心的。我发现这存在问题。

Philosopher B (Female)

Well, if their policies lead to increased suffering, then isn't it fair to question their motives? It's not about being selfish, it's about the outcomes.

嗯，如果他们的政策导致了更多的痛苦，那么质疑他们的动机难道不公平吗？这与自私无关，而是与结果有关。

Philosopher A (Male)

Here's where I need to interject. You're committing an ad hominem fallacy there. Instead of addressing the validity of their policy proposals or the philosophical underpinnings of their arguments, you're attacking their character or motives by implying they're inherently uncaring.

我需要在这里打断一下。你在这里犯了一个人身攻击的谬误。你没有针对他们政策提议的有效性或其论点的哲学基础，而是通过暗示他们本质上不关心他人来攻击他们的品格或动机。

Philosopher B (Female)

I'm not attacking their character, I'm questioning why someone would propose something that could have negative effects. It’s a natural extension of debating policy.

我不是在攻击他们的性格，我是在质疑为什么有人会提出可能产生负面影响的建议。这是辩论政策的自然延伸。

Philosopher A (Male)

But you've framed it as a personal failing rather than a disagreement on principles or predicted outcomes. The logical leap from 'they advocate X' to 'they are inherently selfish' undermines your ability to engage with the actual substance of X. It unfairly shifts the focus.

但是你把它构架成了个人缺陷，而不是对原则或预期结果的分歧。从‘他们主张X’到‘他们本质上是自私的’这种逻辑跳跃，削弱了你参与X实际内容的能力。这不公平地转移了焦点。

Philosopher B (Female)

So, you're suggesting I should ignore the apparent implications of their stance on human well-being?

所以，你是说我应该忽略他们立场对人类福祉的明显影响吗？

Philosopher A (Male)

Not at all. You should critique the implications of their stance on human well-being by analyzing the policy itself, its mechanisms, and its potential effects, rather than attributing a negative moral failing to the person proposing it. Focus on the 'what,' not the 'who,' especially when it comes to character attacks.

一点也不。你应该通过分析政策本身、其运作机制及其潜在影响来 H他们的立场对人类福祉的影响，而不是将负面道德缺陷归咎于提出政策的人。专注于“什么”，而不是“谁”，尤其是在涉及人身攻击时。

词汇

对话中的必备词汇和短语

hinge on

To depend on something completely; if one thing hinges on another, it relies on it for success or truth. Useful in debates to show how an argument depends on a key idea.

完全依赖于某事；如果一件事取决于另一件事，它就依赖于它以获得成功或真实性。在辩论中有用，可显示一个论点如何依赖于一个关键想法。

inherently

By nature or in a basic way; it means something is true from the start. Use this when describing someone's natural qualities in arguments.

出于本性或以基本方式；它意味着某物从一开始就是真实的。在论证中描述某人的自然品质时使用这个词。

empathy

The ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Important in ethical discussions to talk about caring for people.

理解并分享他人感受的能力。在伦理讨论中，谈论关爱人们很重要。

motives

The reasons why someone does something. In debates, question motives to explore hidden intentions behind actions.

某人做某事的原因。在辩论中，质疑动机以探索行动背后的隐藏意图。

ad hominem

A type of logical fallacy where you attack the person instead of their argument. Key term for critiquing unfair debates.

一种逻辑谬误，你攻击人而不是他们的论点。批判不公平辩论的关键术语。

validity

The quality of being logical and true. Use it when checking if an argument makes sense.

逻辑且真实的质量。在检查论据是否有道理时使用它。

underpinnings

The basic ideas or principles that support something. Helpful for discussing the foundation of arguments in philosophy.

支持某事物的基本思想或原则。有助于讨论哲学中论证的基础。

logical leap

A sudden jump in reasoning that skips steps and may not be justified. Use this to point out weak connections in someone's argument.

推理中突然的跳跃，跳过了步骤，可能没有正当理由。用这个来指出某人论点中的薄弱联系。

关键句型

需要记住和练习的重要短语

Your argument, while emotionally charged, seems to hinge on the idea that...

This sentence uses 'while' to contrast two ideas (emotional but dependent on something). It's useful for politely critiquing an argument by pointing out its main weakness. Grammar: Subordinating conjunction 'while' shows concession.

这个句子使用 'while' 来对比两个想法（情感强烈但依赖于某事）。它有助于礼貌地批判一个论点，通过指出其主要弱点。语法：从属连接词 'while' 表示让步。

Here's where I need to interject.

A polite way to interrupt in a debate. 'Interject' means to insert a comment suddenly. Useful when you want to correct a mistake without being rude. When to use: In discussions to stay on topic.

在辩论中礼貌地打断的方法。「Interject」意思是突然插入评论。当你想纠正错误而不失礼时很有用。使用时机：在讨论中保持话题。

You're committing an ad hominem fallacy there.

Directly identifies a logical error. 'Committing' means making this mistake. This is practical for debates to challenge unfair attacks. Grammar: Present continuous for ongoing action in the argument.

直接指出逻辑错误。「Committing」意为犯下这个错误。这在辩论中很实用，用于挑战不公平的攻击。语法：现在进行时表示论证中正在进行的行动。

Instead of addressing the validity of their policy proposals, you're attacking their character.

Uses 'instead of' to show contrast between correct and incorrect approaches. Useful for explaining why an argument is weak. When to use: To refocus a debate on facts, not personal issues.

使用 'instead of' 来显示正确和不正确方法之间的对比。有助于解释为什么一个论点很弱。使用时机：将辩论重新聚焦于事实，而不是个人问题。

The logical leap from 'they advocate X' to 'they are inherently selfish' undermines your ability to engage with the actual substance of X.

Highlights a flaw in reasoning with 'logical leap.' 'Undermines' means weakens. This sentence is great for advanced debates. Grammar: Prepositional phrase 'from...to...' shows the jump.

用‘逻辑跳跃’突出推理中的缺陷。‘Undermines’意为削弱。这个句子适合高级辩论。语法：介词短语‘from...to...’显示跳跃。

Focus on the 'what,' not the 'who,' especially when it comes to character attacks.

Emphasizes debating ideas ('what') over people ('who'). Useful idiom for fair discussions. When to use: To remind others to avoid personal attacks. Grammar: Imperative 'focus on' gives advice.

强调辩论想法（‘什么’）而非人（‘谁’）。用于公平讨论的有用习语。使用时机：提醒他人避免人身攻击。语法：祈使句‘focus on’给出建议。