The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

How many fallacies can you commit in one sentence?

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 785 times Debate No: 32445
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Commit as many fallacies as you can in one sentence. Don't forget to cite them.

1. Round one is acceptance
2. Round two is the sentence
3. You must list your fallacies


Let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1


School makes everyone stupid, and you must go to it because you're stupid.

6 Major Fallacies:
-ad hominem (personal attack)
-Correlation does not imply causation (a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other)
-Fallacy of composition (assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole)
-hasty generalization (basing a broad conclusion on a small sample)
-argument from ignorance (assuming that a claim is true because it has not been proven false or cannot be proven false)
-argument from silence (where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence)



I haven't been proven wrong, so I am right, and you have to prove me wrong because you are stupid.

Argument from ignorance.

Ad hominem.

Shifting the BOP.

None of those fallacies are inherent in your sentence except the ad hominem. All of the others require further information to be established, as they deal with the persons reasoning that is not directly seen in the sentence.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dylancatlow 3 years ago
There was no ad hominem btw, as nothing was predicated on the 'personal attack.' The fact that it affirmed something that could be used to smear someone in place of attacking the arguments was entirely superficial in this instance.
Posted by yuiru 3 years ago
I like
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Hard to pick because con cited less fallacies in their sentence but had extra fallacies and was even fallacious in the round, but pro implied maybe one or two fallacies that were not present in their sentence.