Debating, Proper
Argumentation, Logical
Reasoning, and Reliable Souce
Copyright Lekha “azha” Khiani (@azhedaha) 2025; All rights reserved
Rules
Sides
A debate will usually have 2 sides, the proposition and the opposition.
Proposition: This is the side that's in favor of something; the side making the
positive claim or the proposal. They argue to affirm that claim.
Opposition: This is the side that's opposed to the thing; they generally make
the negative claim. They argue to negate the claim/proposal.
Knowledge
You're expected to have researched the topic being argued before engaging in a
debate on it. If you enter a debate without understanding what's being debated, it
will be unproductive. You should take time and research a topic before entering a
debate on it, or you can watch a server debate and ask questions.
Response Times
Don't enter a debate if you can't engage within a reasonable time period (this
can be agreed upon by both the proposition and the opposition)
Judge
If both sides wish, they can decide on a person to preside over or judge the
debate. The judge will analyze the arguments, behavior, reasoning, and evidence
of both sides to select the debate winner.
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 1
Changes
Both parties should read over these rules, they can propose changes and add
agreed upon rules.
Evidence
The proposition must provide evidence for its claim, it should cite sources
accurately, and must present them if requested.
Relevancy
Both sides should discuss information only relevant to the claim, and should
refrain from changing the claim (shifting the goalpost), introducing irrelevant
topics (red herring), misrepresenting arguments (straw man), or
trolling/ragebaiting.
Debate
Opening
1. The proposition first presents its arguments and claim.
2. The opposition will present its arguments and claim.
3. The proposition will deliver further arguments, identify opposing views,
answer questions raised by the opposition, and provide evidence. This should
not be a direct rebuttal.
4. The opposition can now do the same.
Discourse
1. The proposition will present its rebuttals to the opposition in an attempt to
defeat their arguments.
2. The opposition will address the proposition’s rebuttals and present their own.
3. The proposition and opposition hold a back-and-forth discussion, with the
proposition starting first. Each side takes turns laying out their claims and
rebuttals.
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 2
Conclusion
The debate can end when one side concedes to the claim of the other, or when
the decided judge rules in favor of either side. Both sides should acknowledge
and/or agree to one or more of the opposing side’s arguments.
Proper Arguments
A proper argument is one that clearly states its claims and definitions, uses a
logically valid structure, is well-supported, is free from any logical fallacies, and
is transparent about assumptions and limitations.
Fallacies of Logic
Affirming a Disjunct:
Assuming that if one option is true, the other must be false.
In inclusive "or" statements, both options can be true at the same time.
"I’m either hungry or tired. I’m hungry, so I can’t be tired."
Affirming the Consequent:
Assuming that if "If P, then Q" is true, then "If Q, then P" must also be true.
Just because the outcome (Q) occurred does not mean it was caused by the
condition (P).
"If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, so it must have rained."
Association Fallacy:
Assuming that two things must have the same traits just because they
belong to the same group.
Group membership does not imply that all members have identical qualities.
"This politician is corrupt. They belong to Party X. So, everyone in Party X is
corrupt."
Continuum Fallacy:
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 3
Rejecting distinctions between things because the difference is gradual (or
unclear).
A lack of a solid boundary does not mean categories or differences don't
exist.
"There’s no clear point where someone becomes rich, so no one is ever rich."
Denial of Logical Consequence:
Accepting the premises of an argument but rejecting the logical conclusion.
If the logic is valid and the premises are true, the conclusion must also be
accepted.
"All humans are mortal. Jesus is a human. But Jesus isn’t mortal."
Denying the Antecedent:
Assuming that if "If P, then Q" is true, then "If not P, then not Q" must also
be true.
Q may still be true for other reasons even if P is false.
"If I study, I’ll pass. I didn’t study, so I’ll fail."
Fallacy of Composition:
Assuming that if something is true for the parts that it must also be true for
the whole.
The whole may have different properties from its parts.
"Each part of this machine is light, so the whole machine must be light."
Fallacy of Division:
Assuming that what is true of the whole must also be true of each part.
Individual parts may have different properties to the whole.
"This cricket team is great. Each player must be great."
Fallacy of the Single Cause:
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 4
Claiming that only one cause is responsible for an outcome that has multiple
causes.
Complex effects usually arise from multiple interacting causes.
"The company failed because of one bad decision."
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle:
Assuming that two things are the same because they have a common
quality.
Sharing a common trait doesn’t imply equivalence.
"All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, cats are dogs."
False Cause:
Assuming one thing caused another just because they’re related or
happened close in time.
Correlation does not prove causation.
"I sneezed, and then the power went out. My sneeze caused the power
outage."
False Dichotomy:
Presenting only two options when more might exist.
Most issues are complex and have many alternatives.
"You either support this law or you hate your country."
False Equivalence (or Analogy):
Treating two things as equivalent or comparable when they are not, based
on faulty (or superficial) similarities.
Minor or irrelevant similarities don’t justify treating two things as equivalent.
"Lying about a homework excuse is just as bad as committing fraud."
Gambler’s Fallacy:
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 5
Believing that past random events affect the likelihood of future random
events.
Independent events don’t “balance out” short term.
“I’ve lost the last 5 coin flips, therefore, I’m bound to win this one.” (each flip is
still 50/50)
Non Sequitur:
Drawing a conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from the premises.
The conclusion should logically connect to the premises.
"She’s wearing red, so she must be angry."
Fallacies of Evidence
Anecdotal Fallacy:
Relying on personal stories or isolated examples rather than solid evidence.
Personal experiences aren’t representative or statistically valid proof.
“My grandfather smoked every day and lived to 95. So smoking isn’t harmful.”
Burden of Proof:
Making a claim and expecting others to disprove it instead of providing
evidence yourself.
The person making the claim must support it with proof (Hitchens’ Razor).
“Dragons exist. Prove me wrong.”
Hasty Generalization:
Drawing a conclusion based on a small (or unrepresentative) sample.
A few examples don’t justify a universal statement.
“I met two rude people from New York. People from New York are rude.”
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Cherry Picking):
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 6
Selecting only evidence that supports your argument while ignoring data
that contradicts it.
It's misleading as it excludes parts of the data.
“This drug worked for 3 people, so it must be effective.” (ignores the 97
people it didn't work for)
Quoting Out of Context:
Presenting a quote or other piece of evidence without its context.
It distorts the original meaning and can mislead others about the source's
intent.
A scientist says, “There is no evidence yet that X is effective,” and someone
quotes it as “There is no evidence that X is effective.”
Fallacies of Argumentation
Ad Hominem:
Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument.
The character, traits, or affiliations of a person don’t determine the validity of
their reasoning.
"You’re wrong about climate change because you didn’t finish college."
Argument by Repetition (Ad Nauseam):
Repeating a claim instead of defending it with reasoning or evidence.
Tries to wear out opposition without adding new logic.
“We’ve always done it this way, we’ve always done it this way...”
Begging the Question:
Assuming the conclusion within the premise.
The argument presupposes what it is supposed to prove.
“Reading is important because it is important to learning.”
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 7
Circular Reasoning:
Using the conclusion to support itself.
It’s just going in circles.
“We must obey the law because it’s illegal not to.”
Courtier’s Reply:
Dismissing someone by saying they don’t know enough to speak.
A fancy way of dodging the argument.
“Until you’ve read all 30 volumes on theology, your critique is invalid.”
Definist Fallacy:
Arbitrarily changing the definition of a term, without justification, to win the
argument.
Words can't be defined however you want.
“By freedom, I mean not paying taxes. So taxes are anti-freedom.”
Entitled to My Opinion Fallacy:
Using “it’s just my opinion” to avoid defending it.
Having a right to your view doesn’t mean it’s right.
“That’s what I believe. End of discussion.”
Equivocation:
Using a single word with different meanings in one argument.
Tricks the opposition by switching between different definitions mid-
argument.
“The sign said ‘fine for parking here,’ so I parked- it’s fine.”
Exaggeration Fallacy:
Blowing things out of proportion to prove a point.
Its misleading and makes things much more dramatic than they actually are.
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 8
“If we allow this, civilization will collapse.”
Fallacy Fallacy:
Assuming that if the argument is flawed, the conclusion is false.
A bad argument doesn’t always mean a wrong answer.
“That’s a fallacy, so you must be wrong.”
Fallacy of Amphiboly:
Using ambiguous grammar or sentence structure to mislead or confuse.
The sentence can be interpreted in more than one way because of how it's
written, not what it says.
“I saw the man with the telescope.” (did you have the telescope, or did he?)
Genetic Fallacy:
Judging a claim based on its source, not its merit.
The origin doesn’t automatically make something true or false.
“You got that idea from xyz.com, so it must be wrong.”
Historian’s Fallacy:
Judging past decisions using present knowledge or standards.
It ignores how people at the time would have looked at the issue
“They shouldn't have done that even though it was normal at the time.”
Inflation of Conflict:
Claiming that disagreement among experts destroys the whole field.
Disagreement doesn’t mean the knowledge is unreliable.
"Scientists disagree on some climate models, so climate science is useless."
Ludic Fallacy:
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 9
Assuming simplified models (games, simulations) are a good representation
for real life complexity
Games and simulations don’t account for all real life complexity.
"The risk of this investment is like rolling dice. It’s all just luck."
Middle Ground Fallacy:
Assuming the truth lies between two opposing views.
The midpoint isn’t always reasonable or correct.
"One side says vaccines are safe, the other says they’re deadly, so maybe
they’re just somewhat dangerous."
Moralistic Fallacy:
Assuming that what should to be true is true.
Morality doesn’t determine reality.
"Humans shouldn’t harm nature, so we can’t be causing climate change."
Nirvana Fallacy:
Rejecting a solution because it’s not perfect.
Imperfect solutions can still be good.
"This plan won’t eliminate poverty entirely, so it’s not worth trying."
No True Scotsman:
Redefining a group to exclude counterexamples.
It avoids evidence by shifting definitions.
"No true Muslim would kill people."
Oversimplification Fallacy:
Reducing complex issues to overly simple terms or factors.
It ignores nuances and other important factors.
"Poverty exists because people are lazy."
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 10
Red Herring:
Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main argument.
It derails the discussion without addressing the issue.
"We shouldn’t worry about pollution; what about crime rates?"
Retrospective Determinism:
Assuming events were bound to happen because they happened.
Hindsight bias doesn’t prove inevitability.
"Of course he succeeded, look how talented he is."
Shifting the Goalposts:
Changing the criteria after an argument has been addressed.
It makes a claim impossible to refute.
"Sure, you proved X, but now prove Y instead."
Slippery Slope:
Claiming one event will trigger a chain of negative outcomes.
Without evidence or justification, the predictions are meaningless.
"If we allow this law, next thing you know, we’ll lose all our rights."
Straw Man:
Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.
It distorts the opposition's position.
"You want to reduce military spending? So you think we should have no
military at all?"
Thought-Terminating Cliche:
Using a cliche to end a conversation and stop thinking.
It stops inquiry and reflection
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 11
"It is what it is."
Tone Policing Fallacy:
Focusing on the speaker’s tone instead of their argument.
Emotion/delivery doesn’t determine validity.
"I’d listen to you if you weren’t so emotional."
Tu Quoque Fallacy:
Responding to criticism by accusing the critic of hypocrisy.
It avoids addressing the actual argument.
"You say I shouldn’t lie, but you lied last week."
Fallacies of Appeals
Appeal to Authority:
Arguing that a claim must be true because an authority figure says it is.
Expertise can back a claim, but it doesn't replace evidence or reasoning
"This toothpaste must work, nine out of ten dentists recommend it."
Appeal to Consequences:
Claiming something is true or false based on whether the outcome is good.
Truth isn't dependent on how we feel about the consequences.
"If there’s no afterlife, then life is meaningless, so there must be an afterlife."
Appeal to Emotion:
Using emotions to persuade rather than logic or evidence.
Emotional responses don’t decide truth.
"Think of the children! How could you support this policy?"
Appeal to Ignorance:
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 12
Claiming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false
A lack of evidence isn’t evidence of the opposite.
"No one has proven dragons don’t exist, so they must be real."
Appeal to Incredulity:
Dismissing something as false because it seems unbelievable or hard to
understand.
Personal incredulity doesn’t invalidate a claim.
"I just can’t imagine how evolution works, so it can’t be true."
Appeal to Nature:
Assuming something is good because it's 'natural' or bad because it's
'unnatural'.
“Natural” doesn’t always mean safe or beneficial.
"This herb is better than medicine."
Appeal to Novelty:
Assuming something is better just because it is new.
New ideas aren’t always improvements.
"This is the latest iPhone, so it must be better."
Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum):
Claiming something is true because many people believe it.
Bandwagons doesn’t mean correctness.
"Everyone thinks dragons are real, so they must be real."
Appeal to Tradition:
Claiming something is right because it’s always been done that way.
Tradition alone doesn’t justify continuing something.
"We've always believed in dragons, so they must be real."
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 13
Sources
Evidence used during a debate should be from reliable sources. Reliable sources
are accurate, well supported, and trustworthy. They should be produced by
qualified experts, reviewed for accuracy, or transparent about their methods and
evidence.
Reliable Sources:
Peer-reviewed research from databases like PubMed, JSTOR, or other
academic archives
Public records including court rulings, government investigations, or official
documents
Historical archives or other primary source material
Direct textual evidence from books, scriptures, speeches, or other media
Reports or data from organizations like the CDC, NIH, WHO, or equivalent
national agencies
Secondary summaries from reputable, fact-checked news sources
Unreliable Sources:
Opinion pieces, personal blogs, or YouTube videos (unless presented to
contrast a disagreeing perspective)
News outlets with poor editorial standards, high bias, or repeated factual
errors (Can be used with caution when the article runs against expected bias)
Sources without citations, unverifiable claims, or anonymous authors
Anecdotal evidence or personal testimony given in place of research
Reasoning
Reasoning is "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way"
(Oxford Languages).
Deductive Reasoning:
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 14
General Rule => Specific Case => Conclusion
If premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
All humans are mortal; Jesus is a human => Jesus is mortal
Or as a syllogism:
P1: All humans are mortal
P2: Jesus is a human
P3: Jesus is mortal
Inductive Reasoning:
Specific observations => General Conclusion
The conclusion is likely but not guaranteed.
The sun has risen every day in history => The sun will rise tomorrow
Abductive Reasoning:
Incomplete evidence => Most likely explanation
Its only really effective in theories or heuristics (Occam's Razor).
The grass is wet => It probably rained
Analogical Reasoning:
X is like Y => Whats true of X might also be true of Y
Its strength is dependent on the similarity
A brain is like a computer => Computers process data, so brains probably do
too
Rules of Inference (ROI)
These are some general rules you can use in deductive reasoning to draw
conclusions from premises.
Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent):
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 15
If P -> Q, and P is true => Q is true
If it rains, the streets get wet. It rains => The streets are wet
Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent):
If P -> Q, and Q is false => P is false
If I overslept, I’d be late. I’m not late => I didn't oversleep
Hypothetical Syllogism:
If P -> Q, and Q -> R => P -> R
If I study, I pass. If I pass, I graduate => If I study, I graduate
Disjunctive Syllogism:
P or Q, and P is false => Q is true
Either I brought my book or I left it at home. I didn’t bring it => I left it at home
Constructive Dilemma:
If P -> Q and R -> S, and P or R => Q or S
If I eat cake, I’m happy. If I skip cake, I’m healthy. Either I eat cake or skip it =>
I’m either happy or healthy
Addition:
P is true => P or Q is true (even if Q is unknown)
It’s raining => It’s raining or snowing
Simplification:
P or Q => P is true (and Q is also true, but we can just say one)
I’m tired and hungry => I’m tired
Conjunction:
P is true, and Q is true => P or Q is true
The sky is blue. The grass is green => The sky is blue and the grass is green
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 16
Resolution:
P or Q, and {not}P or R => Q or R
I’ll go out or stay in. If I don’t go out, I’ll read => I’ll stay in or read
Biconditional Introduction:
If P -> Q and Q -> P => P <-> Q
If I win, I celebrate. If I celebrate, I won => I win if and only if I celebrate
Biconditional Elimination:
P <-> Q => P -> Q and Q -> P
I graduate if and only if I pass => If I graduate, I passed. If I pass, I graduate
Nyāya
Nyāya (न्याय) is one of the Shad-Darshana (षड दर्शन - 6 schools of Hindu
philosophy), the School of Logic. Its reasoning is mostly based on Pramānas
(प्रमाणाः), from which Anumāna (अनुमान - conclusions) are drawn.
<small>My knowledge on the Nyāya school is quite limited, this is what I've been
able to understand after about a day of research. Therefore if you have any
corrections, or suggestions, feel free to tell me about them.</small>
4 Pramānas (प्रमाणाः - Sources of Knowledge):
1. Pratyaksha (प्रत्यक्ष) - Perception; empirical, experienced by the senses.
2. Anumāna (अनुमान) - Inference; reasoning based on prior observation.
3. Upamāna (उपमान) - Analogy; comparing similar things.
4. Shabda (शब्द) - Testimony; expert, scripture, etc.
Anumāna Structure (अनुमान):
Pratijnā (प्रतिज्ञा - Claim): "There is a dragon on that hill."
Hetu (हेतु - Reason): "Because the trees are on fire."
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 17
Udāharana (उदाहरण - Rule): "Whenever the tree's are on fire, there is a dragon
present."
Upanaya (उपनय - Application): "The trees on that hill are burning."
Nigamana (निगमन - Conclusion): "Therefore, there is a dragon in the valley."
Other Inference Terms:
Paksha (पक्ष - The subject): The hill
Sādhya (साध्य - The thing to be proven): That a dragon is present
Vyāpti (व्याप्ति - The rule): Wherever there are burning trees there's a dragon
Upādhi (उपाधि - Exception): The tree fire may have started due to lightning
Copyright Lekha “azha” Khiani (@azhedaha) 2025; All rights reserved
Debating, Proper Argumentation, Logical Reasoning, and Reliable Souce 18
