[BluffTHIS!]

DV,

Do you see any distinction between two persons who in debate utilize a logical fallacy, perhaps a subtle one, but where one is ignorant of the fact he is so using that fallacy, and the other intentionally uses same in order to mislead?

It seems to me that in debate, we should be seeking to get at the root of our disagreements and examine same. Since two honest debaters can arrive at different conclusions, the usual cause of same is differing axioms, or perhaps unstated premises, on which the logic of the argument rests. But surely the first step in analyzing another's arguments is to see if the logical chain is valid, so as to be able to focus in on the premises and whether they are valid, far-fetched or unprovable, etc.

However if the object of debate is to "win" via any means possible in the manner of a slick lawyer or salesman, then I guess it is only the efficaciousness of the rhetoric to persuade the unthinking or unlearned that matters.