The Law of Fives states simply that:
All things happen in fives,
Or are divisible by or are multiples of five,
Or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to five.
The Law of Fives is never wrong.
Forums are a place for discussion, and discussion can be something that can breed intelligent thinking and creative influence, flowering a special new creation or train of thought that wil eventually lead to us toppling our reptilian overlords and taking back the planet that is rightfully ours!
Unfortunately, that's pretty much in the minority. And, I mean, like one thread in a hundred, maybe a thousand, maybe a google. I don't know, I'm just making these numbers up on the spot. But, yeah, it's really often that you'll see the chance of logical, intelligent discussion trampled under the boot of general stupidity.
However, the absolute worst thing for an argument, and I mean the WORST, has to be someone using a logical fallacy. This is basically when someone makes a conclusion from a set of two statements that doesn't make sense. That's summing it up. Greatly.
You can keep an eye for them, though, and either point out the fallacy, making yourself look clever and a bit of a git, or just ignore them, which is probably the best idea since most of the time whatever you're going to say is going to be wrong. Now, onto the show!
Ad Hominem Argument ( Argument against the Man )
Probably the most common thing used in discussion is an ad hominem attack, which is basically where a person attempts to get rid of another's points via a general attack on that target's ability to talk about a subject. It can be a logical fallacy for a variety of reasons, from things such as that person doesn't need to be qualified to discuss the subject at hand or that the person has got advice from another person.
Note: You also have reverse ad hominem attacks, such as an appeal to authority, which is where a person attempts to suggest that, since someone knows about a subject, they are correct on that subject. This almost certainly cannot be true, and therefore is a logical fallacy.
Timmy makes a complaint about Game X.
Jimbob suggests that Timmy cannot complain about Game X, because he is not a games developer.
Timmy does not need to be a developer to complain, and therefore Jimbob has done a logical fallacy ALL over the floor.
( This example is technically also a deductive fallacy. See below. )
There is one thing to remember about ad hominem attacks, though, and that is that they need to be in the same style as all other attacks, otherwise they are merely insults. For example, if someone calls you stupid without another statement behind it, that is just merely an insult, not an ad hominem attack. So, don't be stupid and say that someone calling you stupid is doing an ad hominem attack as you're then proving you're stupid. Okay? However, some ad hominem attacks may be insults, and should be treated as such.
Deductive Fallacies ( A + B = C )
That insults bit there has brought us on smoothly to deductive fallacies, which are where two - potentially true - statements add up to a conclusion that is not necessarily true. I'd guess these are probably the second most used fallacies in the entire world, although they're often hidden by verbal diarrhoea.
Most ad hominem attacks are insults.
Most insults are insulting.
Therefore, most ad hominem attacks are insulting.
All people who troll this game hate it.
Jimmy hates this game.
Therefore, Jimmy is a troll.
Non Sequitur ( False Cause )
Moving onto the next fallacy, we've got the non sequiturs, which is a fallacy based around the idea that one thing follows another, when it does not. Pretty often used, you'll probably hear them yourself.
I pray every night, so this game will be great.
My second to last fallacy, the verbal fallacy is obtained through improper or ambiguous use of wording or grammar, giving a false conclusion.
Game D is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than Game W.
Therefore, Game D is better than Game W.
Proof by Intimidation ( Proof by Verbosity )
The final fallacy ( for today, anyway ), proof through verbosity is something you'll see rarely used, although - when you do - the person will often have never been called out about it and therefore usually take up page sprawls with utter dogpoop. This fallacy comes from someone intimidating a forum / person through a great deal of writing, with little substance usually, and therefore claiming victory simply through the unwillingness from anyone to try and unravel their post to make sense of it or to find out if there is any substance in.
( By the way, if any of you are interested, I'll go into detail about the lesser fallacies within the larger groups, or just do more fallacies in general. It's nice to help out a little bit. )