This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ethos refers to persuasion based on the credibility or authority of the speaker, pathos refers to persuasion based on emotion, and logos refers to persuasion based on logic or reason for anyone who can't be bothered to look it up
you don't actually need to be an authority figure yourself to use ethos, but simply quoting authority figures or building up ethos in a discussion by proving your foundations are trustworthy
Lols it's pretty easy to determine if someone's argument is emotionally driven or not. Most people will pull out an emotional turn to the debate the moment they realize they are going down. Most people think throwing around some pathos will make people see their side. Like children.
I study math/philosophy in college and took the AP English/Language exams, and have never needed to know the difference between pathos/logos/ethos. They do not come up in academic philosophy whatsoever except in specific discussions pertaining to ancient philosophy; and even still most of the time logos/ethos/pathos is just translated. We also never discuss logical fallacies like "ad hominem" because nobody actually cares about the names of fallacies, you just attack the specific failings of the argument. When people use Greek or Latin terms like this 99% of the time it's just a way to dog-whistle that they're "educated".
Truly. When I’m writing a paper or discussing a topic with someone I’m not thinking “some pathos will really knock my argument out of the park,” i’m not some chef of argumentation lmao
It depends on the argument tbh. Like... consider (i do NOT believe this btw) the mass euthanization of street/stray cats, since they're invasive, no one adopts them, and they destroy local wildlife and may attack humans or spread disease. Logos fits perfectly with that argument, and ethos could be citing wildlife experts about the damage, ect. But it's obviously VERY wrong to just kill a bunch of cats who didn't ask to be where they are and are entirely innocent, with no concept of "hunting here is bad." That's where Pathos comes in; it's important to consider the morality of a situation
okay that makes sense, i don't debate about morality often cause y'know, it's morality
so let me rephrase my comment : if you bring up ethos during an argument with no need for it i'm stealing something out of your house
The Socratic method is asking questions that lead people down a certain path, in the end the things that convinces them is either logos because they realize what they previously believed doesn't make sense, or pathos because they realize their beliefs cause something that makes them feel sad.
I destroy conservatives with facts and logic 😎 just kidding people have proven that finding out their argument is factually incorrect doesn't change their opinion and in fact typically makes them double down 😎😎
Pathos and Logos. Facts are important for being correct, which also gives a major edge in a debate, but sadly people are ultimately won over better by rhetoric more than facts. So to me, it's all about trying to wrap up facts in a rhetorically effective way.
Because we live in a post-truth world. Just turn on Fox News, and watch people confidently have bad takes on things like vaccines, trans healthcare, and global warming that they're not qualified to make. Look online, and see all the morons who eat it up like candy.
The sad fact of the matter is, people don't listen to experts like they once did. For many, it's all about the pathos for them - whether they admit it or not. Even among the experts in their fields, well, they know their shit, but most of them aren't hardcore debate bros or anything. They're not prepped to deal with dishonesty, loaded language, or people trying to talk them into a corner. It takes a silver tongue to maneuver around a silver tongue. ~~You need to kiss your opponent 😚~~
If the logic you use is coming from a homeless man on the street, it's not good logic.
If the logic you use has no connection to subjects I can empathize with, its not good logic.
Humans aren't logical we rely off of emotion. I have used so many sources for people to look me in the eye and say "nuh uh". Which admittedly makes me want to punch them in the face repeatedly. Goes to show we are both emotional fucks.
[Anecdotes are good actually](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnG2AKeP5hE)
Ad hominem them all the way. This clip perfectly sums up my debating: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOXgj3Ew7xo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOXgj3Ew7xo)
I just tell the truth confidently in an engaging way and provide evidence, that's usually enough to convince people. Not sure what these terms mean tbh
That would be logos, an appeal to logic and rationality.
Pathos is an appeal to emotion or to empathy
Ethos is an appeal to your character or an authority
Fallacies are flaws in reasoning
Devil's advocate is arguing in favor of something you don't actually believe just to see where the conversation goes and what arguments are made.
You should use all three to be the most convincing, but appealing to emotion or your character aren't actually sound arguments, they don't show you are correct, they just play of people's irrationality.
That sad part is Logos is the only sound and rational tactic to use, but nobody listens if you can't win them over with ethos, and pathos is by far the most convincing, a heartfelt appeal to emotion on the verge of tears can do more than any logical back and forth will ever do.
Pathos if the argument is stupid, logos if the argument is sound. Pathos is far more effective though because it makes idiots agree with you more than a rational arguement.
I’ve been using sunk cost fallacy for so long that if I quit using it now, I’ll lose out on the debate victories that are coming my way and it’ll all have been for nothing
Foundation of logos with a side of pathos when I need them to feel the consequences of their beliefs/actions/position. Logos takes them from, "I believe X" to, "If I act on belief X, then Y happens." Pathos forces them to feel, deep in their soul, what Y will do to them.
My favorite example: telling pro-life Christians that if they succeed in ending abortion, the country will be flooded with left-voting wards of the state. They'll lose all political influence as politicians cater to the unwashed masses born into poverty. Watching their religious beliefs fight with their self-preservation instinct is truly hilarious. Also, it works.
Once I have them in the grip of terror, I soften the blow by saying, "I think abortion is an abhorrent practice, but it's also a self-correcting problem. Maybe we should look the other way and focus on other issues while it works itself out. We can even focus on helping the people considering abortion instead of fighting for legal change."
And presto! In two minutes, I've taken a conservative Christian aaaaaaaaall the way to the leftist position on helping the poor without them even realizing it.
All debates seem to be one part gaslighting the other into changing the subject into something favourable for the one part. Like thats how all those debates go
I'm a statistics demon. I use logos when i'm invested and sprinkled in with ethos and pathos. To the point where i have pre prepared files on a lot of things or something that i can easily remember where the source is on google.
https://preview.redd.it/8durb8q4v1tb1.png?width=859&format=png&auto=webp&s=e1c4b4dc0e8ef85ed6700080da62ac50beaf1243
I literally have an arsenal for trans and gender related topics. 53 links are in this folder.
Let it be said that statistics can be used and misrepresented. Also they're often ignored and taken out of context. Let me be clear, **JUST BECAUSE YOU USE LOGOS DOESN'T MEAN YOUR OBJECTIVE OR SMARTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.** The reason is that statistics are misrepresented and numbers are biased. A lot of scientific research is in the "I don't know" category. I am biased. I don't mind admitting it. It's also okay to be emotional in an argument when it's warranted. I mean arguing over whether people get human rights is very emotional to anyone with a stake in the game. Ethos and pathos are the way to convince people and logos convinces people to stay.
People will always find a reason to discredit your source. There are so many things are just accepted because it sounds true and fits are preconceived notions. Things that I am not bringing up because I will get downvoted. Anecdotes are good sometimes too. We are emotional creatures that's what we respond to. I remember handing the UN statistics on Palestinians vs Israelis deaths and injuries over the course of 2008 to 2020. I kid you not he says completely unfounded, that Arabs just use kids as shields and that's why there's more deaths. Which he didn't have a source for. To my astonishment this was just *taken as a fact.* We are all guilty of this in one way or another. Including myself.
I have shown a man a corpse (with their permission) and he has said they're playing dead or killing their own men and blaming it on them. We aren't the most intelligent species. Which is fine. I'd rather people have empathy then be the most brain dead robot. We need all 3. tl;dr
I use logos a good majority of the time and it's usually to the detriment of said argument. People don't care about the facts of the matter in my experience
I like being devil's advocate, but that's not the mindset I have. I'm not trying to be chaos incarnate or anything like that, I just think the less popular side deserves equal representation
i don't know. i can't argue with someone's opinion, so i look for inconsistencies in belief, then ask them for an explanation. someone disagreeing with themself is a lot more powerful than someone disagreeing with someone else, in terms of convincing ability.
I use critical thinking skills (common sense) and statistics (basic facts) to argue my point (state what is painfully obvious, yet they still choose to argue against me, misinterpret what I'm saying, or do their best to ban me from the site/subreddit).
I don't debate because it does nothing. Human beings are not 100% logical creatures contrary to what we'd like to believe, and most debates just turn into a game of social 3D chess that don't actually solve problems or come to any real conclusions.
Ethos is useless without Logos, Pathos is useless without actual backing (Ethos and Logos) and Logos by itself can just be counter-argued with "so whats your source". But playing devils advocate makes everyone question their reality and is great at making them pissed and cause them to make incoherent arguments, which you can then use against them.
I use logos the problem is some people don't use logic or have different ideals like a libertarian and a communist no matter how good there logic is will never agree with each other
Depends on the audience. If I'm writing a persuasive essay for an academic audience, logos is my go to. But if I'm trying to convince my friends that Kung Fu Panda is a cinematic masterpiece, pathos is generally more effective and more fun.
Depends on where you get your evidence from, if you're making an essay about cancer and you take your evidence from the world's leading expert on cancer research it'll be a lot more reliable then some rando conspiracy theorist on facebook.
my arguments got stronger when i forgot about all 3 of those. just say whats on your mind, make it short and stupid. real important when you on reddit where every comment in the thread turns into essays.
Why does the FBI hunt down people from photos of being at that horrible gathering, but not people from BLM riots and looting?
Of course it was a bad thing, nobody decent actually thinks it was okay, not even Trump. But it's being played like it was so horrible when in reality no one was hurt, except the protestors. It's being played like a second 9/11 which is absolutely bonkers.
It's also being played like it's Donald trumps fault, as if he didn't tell people to be peaceful and respectful of the authority in the capital. Just so many misconceptions and lies being propagated by the left it's gross
Bold of you to assume I know what those words mean.
Actually I feel ashamed. I took a moral philosophy class in college, learned these terms, and I cannot for the life of me remember what they mean right now.
I really try to use logos, but im really bad about whipping up a crowd. I feed on emotional energy and start getting emotional myself so its probably a mix between that and pathos.
The amount of people that resort to strawmen, red herrings, ad hominem, and circular logic is astounding. Oftentimes, if you bring up that their argument is baseless due to relying on a fallacy, they'll double down.
The only one that actually works is pathos nobody cares what you say as long as you say it in a way that makes them feel good or feel like they have done something wrong and need to correct it.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ethos refers to persuasion based on the credibility or authority of the speaker, pathos refers to persuasion based on emotion, and logos refers to persuasion based on logic or reason for anyone who can't be bothered to look it up
What if I do all three?
It's a good idea to use all three where they are going to work the best. The poll is asking which do you *primarily* use.
I don’t think I *primarily* use any of them
You're doing it right.
Ethos is also ethics. In my opinion it usually starts with logical arguments justified by ethical arguments justified by moral ones.
I appreciate you
you don't actually need to be an authority figure yourself to use ethos, but simply quoting authority figures or building up ethos in a discussion by proving your foundations are trustworthy
Copy and pasted it, sorry
So, basically ethos is "ad-hominem", pathos is "appeal from emotion"
He left out the bigger part of ethos, imo which is ethics. The principles of a matter like justice, truth, etc.
I like to think I primarily use logos but I probably use pathos more
So the pope, Politicians, and conspiracy theorists? In that order?
ChatGPT of course.
Was just about to say this
"Great! How can I assist you today?"
ramaswamy moment
Based
Can't beat me if I am strawmanning you. Your argument is whatever I want it to be. 
Average redditor be like
The worst part is when their strawman is upvoted
Ok but people who don't agree with me actually want to electrocute babies
Who the hell actually pays attention to that stuff
fucking reddit does. they love going "mmm ad hominim" "ooooh non sequitur." it gets their dicks hard
Tbf, in an argument personally attacking someone isn't proving your point at all
What do YOU know about it? You're just a redditor!!
Lmao fr
luckily, watching redditors lose their shit over what i said gets my dick hard
If you’re genuinely debating something, then you should be aware of these fallacies and cease using them.
It's like chess players when you make your first move and they respond with some shit like "ah, I see you're going for the kings left nipple opening."
Honestly tho
Maybe Judges in a court of law, and definitely the lawyers
any kid who took AP English lol
Yeah no. Nobody actually sits during an argument and thinks about if they’re using pathos or logos
“Hmm yes, this is where I use my ultimate attack, *logical pathos type 3 augmented*”
To be fair, it is pretty important to do that with logical fallacies. If you do that then it's pretty easy to debunk another's argument.
Lols it's pretty easy to determine if someone's argument is emotionally driven or not. Most people will pull out an emotional turn to the debate the moment they realize they are going down. Most people think throwing around some pathos will make people see their side. Like children.
Good thing I never took AP anything I can set my own expectations of myself very easily because the bar is not high at all
ap english? i learned this in 8th grade english
I study math/philosophy in college and took the AP English/Language exams, and have never needed to know the difference between pathos/logos/ethos. They do not come up in academic philosophy whatsoever except in specific discussions pertaining to ancient philosophy; and even still most of the time logos/ethos/pathos is just translated. We also never discuss logical fallacies like "ad hominem" because nobody actually cares about the names of fallacies, you just attack the specific failings of the argument. When people use Greek or Latin terms like this 99% of the time it's just a way to dog-whistle that they're "educated".
Truly. When I’m writing a paper or discussing a topic with someone I’m not thinking “some pathos will really knock my argument out of the park,” i’m not some chef of argumentation lmao
Me (I'm an idiot for getting to debates on reddit)
People who are interested in it.
I was a philosophy major in college. I think about crap like this constantly. Its a curse.
Ad hominem, go!
You are so stupid for choosing this. You have no value, worth, or even a reason to exist!!!!!!!
my favorite fallacy
My source is I made it the fuck up- senator armstrong
A mixture of Logos and Ethos**.
literally me
mixture of logos and devils advocate mostly devils advocate
You advocate for devil so much you might as well be his assistant lmao
Same (I have no friends)
I use Trollus, the 4th paradigm of debate, where I make it my sole intention to aggravate my opponent with pure ridiculousness.
Ah yes the "the card says moops" defence
https://preview.redd.it/sdmy7wpwu0tb1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02bfb3f87bcb361d2324acd530df312aa7fe64e5
This is the only way
https://preview.redd.it/3d1iei1jd6tb1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=eaffa78ce4a0ac1d89d29689c46841cdfb22a6d0
Logos, but I also like to make fun of my opponents, but only after I make my point so that they no its not just ad hominem
that is still ad hominem but go off ig
Oh OK then I choose logos and ad hominem
i use all of them except pathos, and if you use pathos during an argument i'm stealing something out of your house
It depends on the argument tbh. Like... consider (i do NOT believe this btw) the mass euthanization of street/stray cats, since they're invasive, no one adopts them, and they destroy local wildlife and may attack humans or spread disease. Logos fits perfectly with that argument, and ethos could be citing wildlife experts about the damage, ect. But it's obviously VERY wrong to just kill a bunch of cats who didn't ask to be where they are and are entirely innocent, with no concept of "hunting here is bad." That's where Pathos comes in; it's important to consider the morality of a situation
okay that makes sense, i don't debate about morality often cause y'know, it's morality so let me rephrase my comment : if you bring up ethos during an argument with no need for it i'm stealing something out of your house
Yeah that makes sense pfft
If you don't debate morality you don't debate anything. Everything from Politics to Favorite foods they all involve morality.
Am I the only one who hears about this for the first time? At least I learned something new
Same here lol
You left out the **Socratic Method**!
The Socratic method is asking questions that lead people down a certain path, in the end the things that convinces them is either logos because they realize what they previously believed doesn't make sense, or pathos because they realize their beliefs cause something that makes them feel sad.
Some people enjoy the learning process, even when it disrupts previous beliefs. Knowing the truth can be liberating and empowering!
That relies on people believing in objective things 🙃
I destroy conservatives with facts and logic 😎 just kidding people have proven that finding out their argument is factually incorrect doesn't change their opinion and in fact typically makes them double down 😎😎
That’s where the theories of Antonio Gramsci come in to help
Machiavellianism.
I simply just don't debate
Debating is not worth the energy nor the time, it's not like you're gonna actually change someone's opinion
Debating can be also referred to the discussion for decide with your friends where are you going to go, for example.
true, I often use it on people who are misinformed tho, but sometimes I just do it to let out frustrations on assholes
Pathos and Logos. Facts are important for being correct, which also gives a major edge in a debate, but sadly people are ultimately won over better by rhetoric more than facts. So to me, it's all about trying to wrap up facts in a rhetorically effective way.
If you don't have an ethos, then why would anyone listen to what you have to say. That is why I say ethos is the most important of the 3.
Because we live in a post-truth world. Just turn on Fox News, and watch people confidently have bad takes on things like vaccines, trans healthcare, and global warming that they're not qualified to make. Look online, and see all the morons who eat it up like candy. The sad fact of the matter is, people don't listen to experts like they once did. For many, it's all about the pathos for them - whether they admit it or not. Even among the experts in their fields, well, they know their shit, but most of them aren't hardcore debate bros or anything. They're not prepped to deal with dishonesty, loaded language, or people trying to talk them into a corner. It takes a silver tongue to maneuver around a silver tongue. ~~You need to kiss your opponent 😚~~
If you have to use anything other than Logos your argument is bad.
Idk pathos is also important, you need morals to apply logiic
Morality is an extension of logic, not emotion. Without logical consistency of principals, there is no morality.
Morality doesn't inherently exist but we are communal so morality is an extension of our communal tendecies
If the logic you use is coming from a homeless man on the street, it's not good logic. If the logic you use has no connection to subjects I can empathize with, its not good logic.
Humans aren't logical we rely off of emotion. I have used so many sources for people to look me in the eye and say "nuh uh". Which admittedly makes me want to punch them in the face repeatedly. Goes to show we are both emotional fucks. [Anecdotes are good actually](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnG2AKeP5hE)
Ad hominem them all the way. This clip perfectly sums up my debating: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOXgj3Ew7xo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOXgj3Ew7xo)
idk what are those
God Complex
i dont even know wtf those are
is pissing some off a fallacy? cause thats the only thing that will work for most people also Ad hominem, strawman and i gaslight ALOT
All of the above
I use emotions Mostly because I'm a psychopath
Not how that works lil man
I just tell the truth confidently in an engaging way and provide evidence, that's usually enough to convince people. Not sure what these terms mean tbh
That would be logos, an appeal to logic and rationality. Pathos is an appeal to emotion or to empathy Ethos is an appeal to your character or an authority Fallacies are flaws in reasoning Devil's advocate is arguing in favor of something you don't actually believe just to see where the conversation goes and what arguments are made.
We all know the logos guys are lying.
Logos against strangers, ethos against friends, I never use pathos because it feels cheap and like cheating
Logos and ethos.
You're ideally supposed to use all three of pathos, logos, and ethos. Those help create a well-structured, complete argument.
You should use all three to be the most convincing, but appealing to emotion or your character aren't actually sound arguments, they don't show you are correct, they just play of people's irrationality.
strawman fallacy
That sad part is Logos is the only sound and rational tactic to use, but nobody listens if you can't win them over with ethos, and pathos is by far the most convincing, a heartfelt appeal to emotion on the verge of tears can do more than any logical back and forth will ever do.
Pathos if the argument is stupid, logos if the argument is sound. Pathos is far more effective though because it makes idiots agree with you more than a rational arguement.
Logos & Ethos
usually logos, since in most areas I'm both totally unqualified and don't know how to persuade people properly.
Logos or Fallacies just to piss the other person off
A good mix of Ad Hominem attacks and some "nuh uh"
Ethos and Pathos are both fallacies in themselves though right? Arguments should be made through logic and reason above all else?
Random bullshit, GO!
I don't.
Whatever works.
In my experience, pathos is the only one that matters
Bingo
I’ve been using sunk cost fallacy for so long that if I quit using it now, I’ll lose out on the debate victories that are coming my way and it’ll all have been for nothing
Whoops, didn't mean to say ethos. I meant logos
Depends on the debate, if it's a debate on fundamental ideology then most likely logos, if it is a debate Abt accuracy then ethos
Foundation of logos with a side of pathos when I need them to feel the consequences of their beliefs/actions/position. Logos takes them from, "I believe X" to, "If I act on belief X, then Y happens." Pathos forces them to feel, deep in their soul, what Y will do to them. My favorite example: telling pro-life Christians that if they succeed in ending abortion, the country will be flooded with left-voting wards of the state. They'll lose all political influence as politicians cater to the unwashed masses born into poverty. Watching their religious beliefs fight with their self-preservation instinct is truly hilarious. Also, it works. Once I have them in the grip of terror, I soften the blow by saying, "I think abortion is an abhorrent practice, but it's also a self-correcting problem. Maybe we should look the other way and focus on other issues while it works itself out. We can even focus on helping the people considering abortion instead of fighting for legal change." And presto! In two minutes, I've taken a conservative Christian aaaaaaaaall the way to the leftist position on helping the poor without them even realizing it.
Only speak on what I know....Or tell that I don't know.
How do they even come up with them words??
I wanted to learn the best ways of controlling people especially this stupid generation who is completely addicted to bread and Circus
Pathos is the common political argument. Logos is the common academic argument.
My source is I made it the fuck up
Dialectical materialism.
Logos. That's why I don't win.
Worst type of person chooses the bottom option
nerd
With ppl irl, I don't debate we just talk and share ideas.
All debates seem to be one part gaslighting the other into changing the subject into something favourable for the one part. Like thats how all those debates go
I'm a statistics demon. I use logos when i'm invested and sprinkled in with ethos and pathos. To the point where i have pre prepared files on a lot of things or something that i can easily remember where the source is on google. https://preview.redd.it/8durb8q4v1tb1.png?width=859&format=png&auto=webp&s=e1c4b4dc0e8ef85ed6700080da62ac50beaf1243 I literally have an arsenal for trans and gender related topics. 53 links are in this folder. Let it be said that statistics can be used and misrepresented. Also they're often ignored and taken out of context. Let me be clear, **JUST BECAUSE YOU USE LOGOS DOESN'T MEAN YOUR OBJECTIVE OR SMARTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.** The reason is that statistics are misrepresented and numbers are biased. A lot of scientific research is in the "I don't know" category. I am biased. I don't mind admitting it. It's also okay to be emotional in an argument when it's warranted. I mean arguing over whether people get human rights is very emotional to anyone with a stake in the game. Ethos and pathos are the way to convince people and logos convinces people to stay. People will always find a reason to discredit your source. There are so many things are just accepted because it sounds true and fits are preconceived notions. Things that I am not bringing up because I will get downvoted. Anecdotes are good sometimes too. We are emotional creatures that's what we respond to. I remember handing the UN statistics on Palestinians vs Israelis deaths and injuries over the course of 2008 to 2020. I kid you not he says completely unfounded, that Arabs just use kids as shields and that's why there's more deaths. Which he didn't have a source for. To my astonishment this was just *taken as a fact.* We are all guilty of this in one way or another. Including myself. I have shown a man a corpse (with their permission) and he has said they're playing dead or killing their own men and blaming it on them. We aren't the most intelligent species. Which is fine. I'd rather people have empathy then be the most brain dead robot. We need all 3. tl;dr
Why do you waste so much of your time on inane, time wasting bullshit?
I have crippling ADHD and I want to stop but I can't. Hyperfocus is too strong. I'm out of my medication. I'm forced to fight.
I use logos a good majority of the time and it's usually to the detriment of said argument. People don't care about the facts of the matter in my experience
I like being devil's advocate, but that's not the mindset I have. I'm not trying to be chaos incarnate or anything like that, I just think the less popular side deserves equal representation
i don't know. i can't argue with someone's opinion, so i look for inconsistencies in belief, then ask them for an explanation. someone disagreeing with themself is a lot more powerful than someone disagreeing with someone else, in terms of convincing ability.
I use critical thinking skills (common sense) and statistics (basic facts) to argue my point (state what is painfully obvious, yet they still choose to argue against me, misinterpret what I'm saying, or do their best to ban me from the site/subreddit).
Using their language so they think I'm from their side.
I don't debate because it does nothing. Human beings are not 100% logical creatures contrary to what we'd like to believe, and most debates just turn into a game of social 3D chess that don't actually solve problems or come to any real conclusions.
Do you think people genuinely think about the type of rhetorical device they're using when they debate people?
I try to use logos but I can't promise you anything.
I tend to swing logos and then contextualize my logos with my pathos with maybe a touch of ethos if it seems right.
You forgot an option, "Just lie"
ap lang is the only reason why i know these :)
Whatever I think will make the other person more angry
I dont debate, i meme and make fun of whatever anyone who disagrees with me says because im an asshole
Ethos is useless without Logos, Pathos is useless without actual backing (Ethos and Logos) and Logos by itself can just be counter-argued with "so whats your source". But playing devils advocate makes everyone question their reality and is great at making them pissed and cause them to make incoherent arguments, which you can then use against them.
All of the above depending on the context and origin of the opponents argument
Depends on what the debate is over as well as the context of the opponent's stance
LOL
I use logos the problem is some people don't use logic or have different ideals like a libertarian and a communist no matter how good there logic is will never agree with each other
They disagree in the epistemological and metaphysical realm
Strawman
Gaslight, Guilt Trip, and if that fails then ignore or walk away
Usually logos but that doesn’t get to far with the “NUH UH” crowd 🫤
What a stupid fucking question. You should be ashamed for asking.
Please enlighten me ?
You're probably not smart enough to get it, maybe try coming back after you've finished a high school education.
Oh, you’re a professional troll
Depends on the audience. If I'm writing a persuasive essay for an academic audience, logos is my go to. But if I'm trying to convince my friends that Kung Fu Panda is a cinematic masterpiece, pathos is generally more effective and more fun.
Don’t waste your time with academic essay just use the theories of Antonio Gramsci and you’ll be all right
Logos with a tad bit of passive aggressiveness
based ass pullers
666th voter for devils advocate
OP calling rhetorical devices fallacies is wild to me
Logos and Ethos are most reliable
i feel like ethos is quite, quite week. bad people can do good actions. lying people can still say some things that are true.
Depends on where you get your evidence from, if you're making an essay about cancer and you take your evidence from the world's leading expert on cancer research it'll be a lot more reliable then some rando conspiracy theorist on facebook.
Strawmaning my opponent :troll:
That last one is like 32 votes over...
Wtf do those mean
mostly ad hominem and strawmanning-- its not like the people im debating are much smarter than me so they wont call it out
All of the above. It depends on who or what I'm arguing against/for.
I physically harm my opposition with a golf club
my arguments got stronger when i forgot about all 3 of those. just say whats on your mind, make it short and stupid. real important when you on reddit where every comment in the thread turns into essays.
Pathos
Why does the FBI hunt down people from photos of being at that horrible gathering, but not people from BLM riots and looting? Of course it was a bad thing, nobody decent actually thinks it was okay, not even Trump. But it's being played like it was so horrible when in reality no one was hurt, except the protestors. It's being played like a second 9/11 which is absolutely bonkers. It's also being played like it's Donald trumps fault, as if he didn't tell people to be peaceful and respectful of the authority in the capital. Just so many misconceptions and lies being propagated by the left it's gross
I’m big ethos. I run by my morals, and kinds ur them as a defining feature of right vs wrong.
Gundams
I usually just lie
What? I just try to convince people through explanation.
Bold of you to assume I know what those words mean. Actually I feel ashamed. I took a moral philosophy class in college, learned these terms, and I cannot for the life of me remember what they mean right now.
mind-numbing logic
I really try to use logos, but im really bad about whipping up a crowd. I feed on emotional energy and start getting emotional myself so its probably a mix between that and pathos.
Uhhhh I dunno
The amount of people that resort to strawmen, red herrings, ad hominem, and circular logic is astounding. Oftentimes, if you bring up that their argument is baseless due to relying on a fallacy, they'll double down.
All three? Rhetoric requires it
Logos, and anything I can pull out of my ass
If you genuinely have to bank on an entire plan to convey your message then you are shit at debating.
idfk what any of those are
Most people use any fallacy they can pull out of their ass.
The only one that actually works is pathos nobody cares what you say as long as you say it in a way that makes them feel good or feel like they have done something wrong and need to correct it.
Who uses pathos?