So I am a researcher in natural sciences who lives in a democracy. As a citizen of a democratic government, I am required, every so and so years, to take part in the ritual of the Election Time.
Embedded into the ritual are the political debates between the candidates for the various parties that are vying for the positions to be filled in the election. Now, whereas the citizen in me can appreciate the necessity of this public gladiatorial show of oratory, the scientist in me cringes and nearly falls from a stroke whenever I see that public opinion has been swayed, not by a convincing argument, but by a flawed one, mired in fallacies.
I am aware that just because an argument has a fallacy in it, that does not mean its data and spirit are incorrect, it might just be a matter of communication mismanagement. However, many logical fallacies are deliberately used to construct false arguments in order to gain leverage in the show.
I am assuming that the debates are for the benefit of the people, not the candidates, and that preventing the setting of fallacious arguments would force the participants to be more careful with how they say what they mean and would diminish the credibility of fallacious arguments before they have time to have their poison spread.
Whereas the data that the politicians take out of their hats is harder to verify in real time, most logical falacies can be identified very quickly by someone who is paying attention to the argument (if there even is an argument) and has some practice spotting them. And whereas data may be invalidade later, or revalidate later on, logical fallacies are a property of the argument itself, and almost always renders it void, whatever its particular subject matter may be.
I suppose the strategical countermeasure against the creation of this "Logical Jury" could be candidates avoiding attempts and logical arguments altogether, which would make the "debates" more like monologues as politicians use the time allotted to them to talk about themselves, with no regard for what has been asked and who asked the question. Maybe other tweaks in the rules could force them to engage more intensely.
So what would the pros and cons of this be?