1. "We must raise the level of debate!"

The person who says this first in a crowded room is hoping to seem smarter than everyone else. But it is a trick: typically whoever says "we must raise the level of debate!" simply doesn't know how to deal with material already on the table.

So instead of engaging what's out there, they pretend there is nothing out there.

I called the bluff of a UNISA academic once who tried her luck with this trick. This happened after the brilliant Prof Pumla Gqola from Wits University had given an excellent talk on what's wrong, for her, with polygamy; a contribution filled with argument, nuance, and emotional depth. The UNISA academic then said, "We must raise the level of debate!" When I pointed out how much material she had simply ignored, she promptly left the building. 

Also ask political analyst Xolela Mangcu what happened when he moaned about the supposed absence of black intellectuals from public space (yes, that old chestnut). Pallo Jordan, heavyweight ANC intellectual, then cited all the available material Mangcu was simply not engaging. (You can find the spat archived on City Press' website, if it hasn't been taken down!)

Lesson one: "Calling for a debate", or "calling for the level of debate to be raised", is more often than not intellectual laziness. Engage what's out there already; alternatively, just get on with putting your own material on the table.

2. "I STRONGLY believe...!"

This is the stuff of Mzansi bread and butter. The trick is simple: if you assert what you believe, with scary passion, then you've made a case for it. But of course this is a lie. Stating what you believe, however passionately and with whatever level of intimidation you can muster, does not mean you have constructed an argument.

Assertion and argument are two different animals. Too many of us think that when we assert what we think, we have actually argued for our position.

Examples: "I strongly believe affirmative action is wrong!"

"I strongly believe all whites are racist!"

"I strongly believe gays are immoral!"

Lesson two: Offer arguments - premises with credible evidence - for your beliefs. Don't simply tell us what your beliefs are.

3. "I can't believe no one has spoken about [X] ... !"

Example: A writer responded to an open letter I had written to City Press editor Ferial Haffajee by virtually shouting at me, "I can't believe no one has spoken about women's perspective!"

A few years ago a friend of mine used the same trick. A panel had given an interesting array of views on 'the state of the nation'. My friend intervened, "I can't believe no one has spoken about civil society!"

The trick is annoying because it is not a genuine fallacy. If gender matters, then gender issues must be put on the table. If civil society matters, then civil society issues must be put on the table.

But beware, dear friend, there's a crafty rhetorical aim here nevertheless: a) the objector pretends that their pet topic is THE MOST IMPORTANT - of course; and b.) more seriously still: the objector typically IGNORES what was said simply because they've discovered something on the shopping list that had not been put in the debate basket. 

Lesson three: When you spot an item missing from discussion, don't go into rebuttal overdrive. Always remember to engage what was actually said, and give a fair account of the consequences of the missing item not being discussed. There'll always be time for your pat topic. Life's not that short!

4. The personal attack

This is the most popular bad habit in our country. Instead of engaging someone's viewpoint, you simply attack their identity. I will take anyone out for a free lunch at their favourite restaurant if they could produce a public speech delivered by Julius Malema that does not rely on at least one use of this fallacy.

Of course it is illogical to attack someone's person, but it can be very effective in a country as divided as ours. There are literally tens of thousands of examples from everyday life, the workplace, political debate, talk shows, Twitter, Facebook, the comment section below on-line articles, etc.

Motivational speaker Vusi Thembekwayo is currently critiquing the National Youth Development Agency for not fulfilling their mandate. He may or may not be right. But here's the thing: while putting his case on SAfm, a caller calls in and says something to the effect of, "Vusi is DA! I can't listen to his views on the NYDA!"

That's classic. And it is illogical. I don't know if he is a member of the DA but the response remains illogical regardless. Being a member of the DA does not mean you are incapable of arguing successfully why the NYDA is not fulfilling its mandate. This is a bit like thinking that you won't engage a black person's arguments in favour of black economic empowerment because they are black and might be motivated by self-interest. Just because someone might gain from a policy doesn't mean they can't make a good case for that policy.

Lesson four: Always show why someone's logic is poor or why the evidence they are relying on is false or weak. Never think you have knocked down an argument when you have simply attacked someone's background, accent, race, school they attended, their class or some such fact about them.

5. "Analysts say ..."

I have lost count of the number of times I've read political reports in our newspapers that have started with the sentence, "Analysts say..." only to realise while reading the article that only ONE analyst is being referred to. This fallacy is a favourite among journalists, and it doesn't stop being a fallacy just because you're under time pressure. A thin basis for your story is a thin basis whether you wrote it under time pressure or whether you had a year to write it.

There are two reasons why this bad habit exists: a) laziness (it takes more time to speak to more people or to do proper research to test what analysts tell you); and b) ‘confirmation bias' is a human tendency we all have - many writers are simply looking for a quote that confirms their storyline, and if they can get it from a regular dial-a-quote contact, why look any further? This is not just bad just journalism. It is worse: it demonstrates a lack of intellectual curiosity.

Lesson five: Avoid hasty generalisations. You cannot draw general conclusions - "Analysts say...!" - if you only spoke to a random guy called Eusebius, even if what he says affirms your own take on things.

These five bad habits are the tip of the ice-berg. We have patterns of poor thought that we display. The reason is simple. We are not taught to think analytically in our schools and at our tertiary institutions. And so we arrive at the workplace - or in Parliament - not fit for debating and dialogue purpose. We will never deal with our gigantic differences as South Africans, let alone our policy challenges, if we remain a country filled with people not able to think, and debate, analytically. I dream of a country in which every school offers compulsory critical thinking lessons. But sadly, if so many of our teachers and policy makers, and politicians, lack these skills, what hope is there that the education system could impart these skills in the next generation of leaders?

-  Mckaiser previously won the South African National Debate Championships. He is also the 2011 World Masters Debate Champion. He coaches debating, critical thinking and public speaking. Follow him on Twitter @eusebius

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter