Various groundings in truth, logic, deduction, inference, scientific method, and mathematical proof, are useful.<p>I'd start with the distinction between <i>didactic</i> and <i>rhetorical</i> speech, for starters, a distinction and conflict which goes back to Plato's contempt for the Sophists (from whence: sophistry). I had the realisation in the past year or so that I'm frequently, so to speak, bringing a didactic knife to a rhetorical gunfight. The two modes mix poorly.<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic</a><p>There is the distinction between formal logical argument (syllogism), and more informal argument.<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism</a><p>And between <i>valid</i> and <i>sound</i> arguments.<p>The field of epistemology, and <i>criteria of truth</i> is one that far more people could use grounding in. <i>How do you make a determination that something is or isn't true?</i> Based on incomplete information, partial understanding of that, and limited time? Turns out there's a study of the problem, within philosophy, and some useful guidance:<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth</a><p>Protip: apply <i>coherence</i>, <i>consistency</i>, or <i>pragmatic</i> principles where possible. Be aware of the others and their weaknesses though.<p>The best use of logical fallacies I've found is to apply them to my own thinking, and to be aware of their use as rhetorical ploys by others.<p>I'd stumbled across a set of frequently used "dirty tricks" some time back, collected here:<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_reactionary_political_debate_playbook_karl/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...</a>