From my own knowledge, statistics is commonly use as a tool in debate.

According, to the eight slide of 'Statistics in Debate' seminar presentation slide by Noah Mengisteab & Barry Corcoran, "Data is a product of research. It’s not a random number that falls from the debate gods for you to use to win a round."

But, according to the first sentence in the last paragaph of this article, "The UK Statistics Authority has the statutory role to safeguard and promote the production and publication of Official Statistics."

So, I conduct an inductive conclusion about whether a statistics is entirely pure from logical fallacy or not when someone use statistics in debate and produce this:
"Statistics sometimes contain logical fallacy. It is exist due to widespread of scientific method usage which exist as an indirect form of appeal to authority fallacy."


Even after I had produce that conclusion, some question still arise:
1. Is appeal to authority fallacy in debate itself arise from standardization of science by scientific method? Is it also arise from public ethical concern toward authority?

2. Is it possible to avoid any form of logical fallacy in debate?

3. From my own knowledge and research, debater usually learn logical fallacy for the sake of it's practical application and sometimes use informal fallacies in debate. What technique usually makes debater could win their debate? And how someone should debate if he/she want to win a debate?

4. How could I learn to build good argument in regular debate? and how it differ from philosophical debate?

P.S.
- Please don't answer number 1 and 2 from philosophical perspective, but from debate perspective. I'm just a beginner in both philosophy and debate.
- You may answer question number 1 and 2 from both philosophical and debate perspective, but separate the answer from each perspective
- You could answer number 3 and 4 from any perspective