[devonin]

I feel as though the impression that this thread has created is that fallacies cause an argument to be invalid, which is not the case. Maybe it would benefit the discussion if the concepts of validity and truth were explained along with the levels of "goodness" of an argument (validity, consistancy, sound, good). I am assuming that my terms will be wrong, but hopefully everyone understands what I am saying.

The intention of the thread is within the context of "A valid argument" for the purposes of this flash rhythm game's critical thinking subforum full of highschoolers, and isn't really intended to get into the depths of formal or symbolic logic, etc.

Yes, an argument can be semantically valid and have an invalid conclusion. Yes an otherwise sound argument can have one or more fallacies present, and the intention here was never to suggest that those things are not true.

The purpose of this sticky is simply to say "Here are some of the things you can do, thinking they are okay, but which aren't, and detract from whatever point you're trying to make" for the sole purpose of avoiding those things wherever possible in what is pretty much a completely informal discussion group.

I did not look closely at the list of fallacies, but I do not think I saw circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by The sticky

Petitio Principii or Begging the question - This is a common fallacy wherein your evidence in support of an argument presupposed that you have already accepted the argument, or requires that you have. Example: The case example of begging the question is arguing the validity of the bible using evidence contained within the bible. In order for the evidence to be acceptable, you have to have already concluded that the bible is valid.