Sound arguments require basic logic. Sounds obvious, right? But it seems that some people just don't understand this. Or maybe they understand basic logic incorrectly. Anywho, when someone structures an argument in such a way that it doesn't actually prove the point they were trying to argue, I find it mildly amusing. It happens often too. I'm going to go on to describe one example of this that I encountered recently.
So, a little while ago, I went to a talk entitled, "Is religion inherently violent?". I don't care where you stand on this issue, it is just to illustrate my point. The speaker went on to demonstrate that violence exists outside of religion with a variety of examples, particularly from the 20th century. She also put forward one way that violence would develop in any group of people, religious or otherwise.
You see what she did? The issue itself wasn't addressed at all. By showing that violence exists outside of religion, you're not saying anything about whether or not religion is inherently violent. What she wanted to prove was that religion does not imply violence, but what was shown was that violence can result outside religion.
On the other hand, if you couldn't show that there was violence outside of religion, and there existed some violence, that would be a proof that all violence comes from religion. Not a proof that religion is inherently violent as there could still be some religions that don't cause violence. I can see how people can get confused, but it's not too hard really, if you just think about it.
Lastly, I'm not saying the talk was bad, she did bring forward an interesting point. I'm just saying that she didn't prove the argument the talk was supposed to be based on.
