During heated debates people - who are normaly quite rational - often start employing bad reasoning. It's important that when we're emotionaly invested in a topic we don't let our feelings destroy our ability to put forth valid arguments. The best way to bring people to our side of a debate is by using good logic. Hopefully, shinning light on some fallacies will arm you for the future. Here's just a few I've spotted recently:
.
Darren Wilson hasn't been indicted - therefore Brown was lawfully shot by the officer
(Tautology rhetoric - a self-reinforcing pretense) This arguement precludes the possibility that a person can do something unlawful and simultaneously not be indicted.
.
Some people looted a store in Furguson - therefore the Hands Up Don't Shoot movement is a farce
(Biased Sample - drawing conclusions about a group of people from a non-representive sample) Just becasue some, if any, of the people involved in this movement looted a store it does not follow the movement is a farce.
.
Michael Brown robbed a convenience store - therefore we should not support his right to life
(Non Sequitur - presenting evidence that is irrelevant to the conclusion) We still support peoples right to life regardless if they have or haven't robbed convenience stores.
.