Interesting political poll

Not the best man to cite to prove your point there Dave.

Two Term Prime Minister of Portugal
High Commissioner for Refugees
Elected Secretary General of the United Nations
Responding to Expert Evidence to the UN General Assembly

You don't get better credentials than those.

the issue here is that he doesn't agree with you so you try to discredit him.

better to watch

Tommy Robinson Videos
Donald Trump Tweets
Britain First Social Media

Nice selective editing there mate to ignore all substance - there's a potential career in main stream media waiting for you for sure.

The key phrase you need to rehearse is 'so what you're saying is...' nail that and the Guardian/BBC/Channel 4 will be all over you

Not the best man to cite to prove your point there Dave.

Two Term Prime Minister of Portugal
High Commissioner for Refugees
Elected Secretary General of the United Nations
Responding to Expert Evidence to the UN General Assembly

You don't get better credentials than those.

the issue here is that he doesn't agree with you so you try to discredit him.

better to watch

Tommy Robinson Videos
Donald Trump Tweets
Britain First Social Media

Oh and for the record an argument to authority is a terrible debating tactic as although commonly used it invariably tends to lead to logical fallacy. Just saying like.

Oh and for the record an argument to authority is a terrible debating tactic as although commonly used it invariably tends to lead to logical fallacy. Just saying like.

no, a terrible debating tactic is when you don't even debate the topic, you just spend multiple posts criticising the persons debating tactic without actually putting anything constructive forward.

by the way an argument from authority (JuSt SaYeN LiKe) is when you claim correctness based on one source only, not when you use a source to back up an argument you are building and arguing for various reasons. are you saying nobody should use quotes or sources in anything because it will 'invarably tend to lead to a logical fallacy? how is that even relevant in this case, generally when ive come across the 'argument from authority' thing it's been in science and psychology not an internet board where someones posted a quote!

no, a terrible debating tactic is when you don't even debate the topic, you just spend multiple posts criticising the persons debating tactic without actually putting anything constructive forward.

Agreed 100% - that's why I only pointed it out in one post (which was essentially an afterthought) and not multiple posts - because that would be playing the man not the ball, which even the best of us tend to do every now and then but is generally best avoided.

by the way an argument from authority (JuSt SaYeN LiKe) is when you claim correctness based on one source only, not when you use a source to back up an argument you are building and arguing for various reasons

Also agreed - see common ground right there.

In fact, this is exactly why in my first comment I simply pointed out that Guterres was a poor example of someone to cite to back up the argument being put forward because he is a) based on his long-standing political position clearly partisan to the same views held by Dave and b) someone who has a terrible track record when holding a position of real power (i.e. being the Prime Minister of Portugal who had to resign resulting in his parliament being dissolved.)

No reference to an argument from authority there you'll note, just highlighting that it was a weak source to lean upon to support an argument.

It was only when Dave cited Guterres credentials as the reason why he was, in fact, someone he should cite to support his argument, that Dave slipped into making an argument from authority/appeal to authority (same meat different gravy) or even an argumentum ad verecundiam if you want to use the Latin name (one for the Mighty Boosh fans there).

So glad we've got that all sorted and that we're all in agreement.

are you saying nobody should use quotes or sources in anything because it will 'invarably tend to lead to a logical fallacy? how is that even relevant in this case, generally when ive come across the 'argument from authority' thing it's been in science and psychology not an internet board where someones posted a quote!

Sorry, I missed the latter part of your post so just to clarify your additional questions...

Firstly - genuine polite question - did you see my initial post or just Dave's response and my subsequent response to his responses? Genuinely not saying that in an antagonistic way, it's easy enough to overlook posts but based on what you've written it seems like you might be missing some context?

Secondly- of course, quoting a source is valid and sensible - if you look back you'll see that in my initial post on this thread I also quoted Guterres. It is also equally valid and sensible to question whether the source being quoted is credible and is capable of supporting the argument being put forward or whether their opinion shows bias - in which case it will clearly carry less weight.

So to correct your misunderstanding of what I've stated and to confirm - citing a source doesn't lead to a logical fallacy at all.

However, an argument from authority is not citing a source.

An argument from authority is stating that the authority which the source you are quoting holds is reason enough to accept their position as one of truth, which is oftentimes a logical fallacy.

For example (and why it is relevant here) Dave highlighted Guterres credentials implying that Guterres' positions of authority are the reason we should be listening to him (and thus ignoring the substance of my post outlining why Guterres' opinions show clear bias which diminishes the impact of him as a citable source in this context)

So Dave's argument to authority is as follows:

Guterres has held positions of power within national government and the UN
Guterres made comments about immigration/national sovereignty/socialism
Guterres is probably correct

This is a logical fallacy.

So just to reiterate - Dave's argument from authority has nothing to do with him citing someone or putting a quote in a post to back up an argument - it is the implication that Guterres credentials alone make his position correct - which in fairness was a neat trick to completely circumvent the substance of my post that raised the point that Guterres' clear and consistent bias across his career made him a poor reference to support Dave's argument.

Finally, the origins of argument from authority whilst used within both psychological and scientific terms date back as far as I am aware to Socrates and it is equally correct when used in the context of debate (indeed the Socratic method of debate is also found within scientific approaches as well).

Hope that clears things up

Not the best man to cite to prove your point there Dave.

Guterres is an extreme far-left, open border zealot who has used his office in the UN to openly drive a full globalist agenda with statements such as I" will ask the governments to cooperate, to recognize that sovereignty is an illusion" and "The idea that management of migration is a matter of national sovereignty is extremely limited"

Also given his links with various national communist parties as leader of the Socialist Internationalist party, personally I think it's quite rich for him to be talking about discrimination, slavery and genocide - things that have all had a tendency to pop up with alarming regularity in communist societies across history.

And that's before we even get to the fact that whilst he was prime minister the Portuguese parliament was dissolved as his party crumbled under a slew of allegations of corruption and poor economic management. Him getting the UN job is a bit like Carvahal getting the Swansea job after failing at Wednesday - jammy buggers the Portuguese I guess.

Basically quoting Guterres on immigration is the equivalent of quoting a turkey saying we should all be a vegetarian dinner on Christmas day.

You did a highly opinionated (at one point you were holding him responsible for discrimination, slavery and genocide in communist countries) hatchet job on him to explain why you thought he was a poor source to quote.

Two Term Prime Minister of Portugal
High Commissioner for Refugees
Elected Secretary General of the United Nations
Responding to Expert Evidence to the UN General Assembly

You don't get better credentials than those.

I gave a factual list of the roles that he held to back up his eminence.

and then you attacked me for "terrible debating tactics"

1)

The key phrase you need to rehearse is 'so what you're saying is...' nail that and the Guardian/BBC/Channel 4 will be all over you

2)

argument to authority is a terrible debating tactic

twice over two posts.

a)dave puts forward quote to back up what he is saying
b)you give a one sided criticism of the source
c)dave backs up the relevance of the source by giving credentials

there was no "this must be right because simply because Gutterez says so", he was just balancing out your one sided view of the source to explain why he quoted him as far as i can tell? if you hadn't given that one sided criticism i doubt he would have even mentioned Gutterez' credentials so he's in no way basing his argument on 'Gutterez says so'? massive difference between "Gutterez has strong credentials so he is an authoritive figure on the subject" and "Gutterez is an authority on the subject so Gutterez is definitely correct" you forced dave into doing the former with your criticism and one sided view.

genuinely didn't need multiple paragraphs to explain something that is fairly simple as well but cheers anyway.

While we are discussing logic lets have a look at a Fallacious Syllogism prevalent here....

Major Premise: Terrorists are a threat to the UK
Minor Premise: All Islamic Terrorists are Muslim
Conclusion: All Muslims are a threat to the UK.

I assume that all those voting to stop immigration would be happy to stop foreign footballers coming to these shores to play in our league system?

I assume that all those voting to stop immigration would be happy to stop foreign footballers coming to these shores to play in our league system?

to be fair if that was the case we'd be one of the strongest teams in the prem

I assume that all those voting to stop immigration would be happy to stop foreign footballers coming to these shores to play in our league system?

option 3 has the most votes which is ..against MASS immigration..
which is where i stand...yes to immigrants that will work pay taxes and in general contribute...no to free loaders that stretch our resources

While we are discussing logic lets have a look at a Fallacious Syllogism prevalent here....

Major Premise: Terrorists are a threat to the UK
Minor Premise: All Islamic Terrorists are Muslim
Conclusion: All Muslims are a threat to the UK.

Your essentially correct in the above although I would argue that all Islamic terrorists are Muslim is of course fact by definition not a minor premise.

It would have been perhaps better to have a minor premise of the majority of terrist attacks in the UK are Islamic.

However I quite agree that your conclusion that all Muslims are are a threat to the UK is a fallacious syllogism.

Also given his links with various national communist parties as leader of the Socialist Internationalist party, personally I think it's quite rich for him to be talking about discrimination, slavery and genocide - things that have all had a tendency to pop up with alarming regularity in communist societies across history.

At one point you were holding him responsible for discrimination, slavery and genocide in communist countries)

Unless he was single-handedly responsible for the implementation of communism in a number of societies across history it's a bit of a leap to say I'm holding him responsible for discrimination, slavery and genocide.

But the communist ideology he espouses has historically been responsible for some of the greatest human suffering in the history of mankind. Therefore there is a bit of pot calling kettle black (or as I phrased it a bit rich) when he conflates sovereignty with neo-nazism and infers that it will lead to discrimination, slavery and genocide.

I gave a factual list of the roles that he held to back up his eminence.

The first part of that sentence is correct I'll give you that. The second part is up for debate. Rather than list, the positions he has held, surely a stronger argument would be to list the things he achieved whilst holding those positions.

For example, you list his being a two-term prime minister of Portugal as an example of his eminence.

I pointed out that he actually had to resign before the end of his final term amidst a wave of corruption scandals and poor economic decisions and that his resignation led to the dissolution of the Portuguese parliament. Personally, I don't see that as a pedigree that adds weight to his position and adds gravitas to his arguments. I see it as a monumental failure.

and then you attacked me for "terrible debating tactics"

I really didn't did I Dave, I stated that an argument from authority is a terrible debating tactic. It is.

Is that any more of an attack than you suggesting I would be happier watching Britain First videos, knowing full well what the implication of your comment was?

The key phrase you need to rehearse is 'so what you're saying is...' nail that and the Guardian/BBC/Channel 4 will be all over you

How is that attacking his debating style, it was a light-hearted dig at the fact that he didn't actually respond to any single point within the first post. It was also far less offensive than the 'Britain's First' inference in Dave's post

a)dave puts forward quote to back up what he is saying

b)you give a one-sided (yet factual) criticism of the source - by quoting the guy twice as well as highlighting his role as former leader of Socialist International (who have strong links to various international communist parties) I outlined his overt far-left, globalist bias and additionally by citing the fact under his stewardship as prime minister the Portuguese government was dissolved flagged up his previous incompetence

c)dave decides not to support his argument with examples of good stuff Guterres has said or done to counter my example of bad things he has done - instead attempts to back up the relevance of the source by giving credentials, perhaps hoping waving around a list of impressive titles will somehow make the quotes attributed to Guterres in my post magically go away. A shorter way of describing this would be to sat Dave makes an argument for authority.

d) Dave infer's I am a nazi/rascist/xenophobe/all of the above by suggesting I would be happier watching Britain First videos.

I'm a bit of a pedant I know but I do like to keep things accurate so updated this with some quite salient points you were missing i've added these for you in italics

I assume that all those voting to stop immigration would be happy to stop foreign footballers coming to these shores to play in our league system?

to be fair if that was the case we'd be one of the strongest teams in the prem

Best post in the whole thread made me laugh out loud that did mate.

The key phrase you need to rehearse is 'so what you're saying is...' nail that and the Guardian/BBC/Channel 4 will be all over you

How is that attacking his debating style, it was a light-hearted dig at the fact that he didn't actually respond to any single point within the first post. It was also far less offensive than the 'Britain's First' inference in Dave's post

a)dave puts forward quote to back up what he is saying

b)you give a one-sided (yet factual) criticism of the source - by quoting the guy twice as well as highlighting his role as former leader of Socialist International (who have strong links to various international communist parties) I outlined his overt far-left, globalist bias and additionally by citing the fact under his stewardship as prime minister the Portuguese government was dissolved flagged up his previous incompetence

c)dave decides not to support his argument with examples of good stuff Guterres has said or done to counter my example of bad things he has done - instead attempts to back up the relevance of the source by giving credentials, perhaps hoping waving around a list of impressive titles will somehow make the quotes attributed to Guterres in my post magically go away. A shorter way of describing this would be to sat Dave makes an argument from authority.

d) Dave infer's I am a nazi/rascist/xenophobe/all of the above by suggesting I would be happier watching Britain First videos.

I'm a bit of a pedant I know but I do like to keep things accurate so updated this with some quite salient points you were missing i've added these for you in italics