Why logical arguments are bad arguments

[Eric Cartman]

so the difference between "others have studied this and arrived at consensus" and "here's a reason I'm right: a smart person also said it, and if you respect him you'll agree with me"

not "they're right because they're smart," but "they're right because they performed the research" (not playing up credentials other than the fact that they helped establish fact)

Like I said, subjects for debate are not should not be factually provable objective elements of consensus reality; they are fundamentally unprovable or subjective 'truths', and the point of the debate is to craft the most persuasive argument, or to make the most reasonable attack / defence of a given subject.

So if the topic of debate was "What is best in life?", you can't shouldn't respond that Conan says to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women, therefore the subject of debate is proven, because fucking Conan said it bro, and you ain't no Conan.

It's a fallacy for the same reason the Chappelle joke about wanting to hear what Ja Rule thinks about 9/11 is a joke; Ja Rule has no particular insight into international geopolitics, but you have heard of him.