The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Death23
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Find the logical fallacy: Charcoals are human.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Death23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 93669
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I will produce a logical fallacy. Con must name the logical fallacy.

Rules: Con can only win by naming the correct logical fallacy, failure to do so automatically gives a win to Pro.

Here goes the logical fallacy:

Humans are made of atoms.
Charcoals are made of atoms.
Therefore, charcoals are human.
Death23

Con

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

http://philosophy.lander.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
StupidapeDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The logical fallacy was correctly identified by Con.
Vote Placed by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
StupidapeDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con couldn't have explained his side better if he had tried to explain it himself. The visuals work to aid understanding, and I wouldn't have understood it without.
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
StupidapeDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is correct in his identification of the logical fallacy.