About 70% of the arguments I engage in on Dart are common/uncommon logical fallacious. Here are the most common ones I've come across and how to fix them:
(1) Ad Hominem -- when you attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. This is logically fallacious because even if the person has a negative trait, this in no way debunks the argument being made. Always avoid Ad Hominem.
(2) Appeal to Authority -- this incurs a similar problem to Ad Hominem in that the qualifications/position of someone is used as evidence, when again the evidence should be found within the argument itself, not who is making it. In times of knowing absolutely nothing about the topic, it may be reasonable to default to expert consensus. However, when material on the topic is available, you should never be using this line of reasoning.
(3) 'Lived experience' as evidence -- the issue with this is that you're applying your (potentially faulty) perception of events to make (potentially faulty) inductive conclusions. This renders whatever conclusion you draw likely fallacious because you are failing to control for confounding variables. Also, 'lived experience' lacks objectivity in that you're almost always unable to demonstrate your lived experience to other people. Again, in times of not knowing research and data on the topic, your lived experience may be the best evidence you have, but it is by default very poor due to the way it's constructed. Don't use 'lived experience' in your reasoning, unless you have nothing better.
(4) Begging the Question -- this occurs when you imbed the conclusion in your reasoning. This is a logical fallacy because you can't use the conclusion you're trying to prove as evidence for the conclusion you're trying to prove (you haven't yet proven the conclusion!) Always avoid begging the question.
I hope this short post helps some people realize the invalid nature of their logic, and thus allows them to construct stronger arguments.
