In David & Stephanie Lewis' Article "Holes" the nominalist/realist debate gets taken to a phenomena that all of us are likely directly aware of at one point in our lives.
The absent areas of cheese in a block of swiss, the space of an open window, the inside of a paper towel roll, etc. etc.
Argle and Bargle debate if holes are in fact material objects, or the absence of material objects.
At first the debate seems trivial but it quickly gets into the gritty details.
My question is what logical fallacies did Argle and Bargle commit in their debate?
If you have not encountered it before the 7 page article can be read in its entirety here : Holes